A dilemma: Prophylaxis for pulmonary embolism after surgical or invasive interventions for hemodialysis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid6603426994
dc.authorscopusid8712477800
dc.authorscopusid10139404200
dc.authorscopusid6701745769
dc.authorscopusid6507901081
dc.authorscopusid6603164027
dc.authorscopusid7005543032
dc.contributor.authorAlat I.
dc.contributor.authorTürker G.
dc.contributor.authorAkpinar M.B.
dc.contributor.authorTaşkapan H.
dc.contributor.authorKekilli E.
dc.contributor.authorE?ri M.
dc.contributor.authorAydin Ö.M.
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T19:59:12Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T19:59:12Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim. This study was designed to investigate if it needs to do prophylaxis for pulmonary embolism in the patients treated with different kinds of dialysis or not, and if it is, to find a proper method for prophylaxis. Methods. Ten numbers of patients with central venous catheters (CVC group), 13 numbers of patients with arteriovenous fistula (AVF group) were enrolled in this study. Eleven patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD group) were utilized as a control group. Clinical and laboratory examinations to exclude pulmonary embolism were carried out in both AVF and PD groups at the onset and after three months. Same examinations were performed in CVC group at the onset and after 3 weeks (mean: 21 days). Examinations to exclude pulmonary embolism consist of medical history, clinical examinations, d-dimer measures, chest x-ray, respiratory function tests, blood gas analyses, ventilation-perfusion scintigraphies. Results. Neither clinical nor laboratory findings in any stages reflected any suspicion for pulmonary embolism. None of the patients in any groups was admitted with pulmonary embolism in any period of follow-up. There was not any statistically difference between the outcomes of all first examinations and of all second ones (P>0.005). Neither obvious nor subclinical pulmonary embolism was detected in any case. None of the patients had deep venous thrombosis in any stage of follow-up. Conclusion. Conventional techniques of haemodialysis do not lead to pulmonary embolism unless deep venous thrombosis due to any intervention occurs in the patients. Thus, prophylactic anticoagulant usage to prevent pulmonary embolism is not necessary in haemodialysis patients. To shorten the length of stay of central venous catheters is the most important factors for pulmonary embolism prophylaxis in haemodialysis patients.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage323en_US
dc.identifier.issn0026-4733
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid17122764en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-33846500781en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.startpage315en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/90445
dc.identifier.volume61en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMinerva Chirurgicaen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectArteriovenous fistulaen_US
dc.subjectCentral venous catheteren_US
dc.subjectHaemodialysisen_US
dc.subjectProphylaxisen_US
dc.subjectPulmonary embolismen_US
dc.titleA dilemma: Prophylaxis for pulmonary embolism after surgical or invasive interventions for hemodialysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu