ABSTRACT
As the cases of kidney transplant are increasing, the need to apply the factors to increase the success of transplant seems necessary. Mannitol increases the osmotic pressure and urine volume as a protective agent on renal tubules. We aimed to evaluate the effect of mannitol on short-term outcome of kidney transplantation by comparing two groups based on prescribing mannitol to donors. In a randomized clinical trial, 60 kidney recipients were assigned in two groups (30 in each), except that in one group donors received mannitol. They were studied with respect to age, gender, weight, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr), sodium (Na), potassium (K) and arterial blood gas (ABG) before and after surgery, and their pulse rate (PR) and blood pressure (BP) before, during and after surgery. Their urine volume was assessed in the operation room and the first 24 h after surgery. The short-term outcome, including BUN and Cr in the first 10 days after transplant, have been charted. Both the case (mannitol-positive donor patient) and the control (mannitol negative) groups were the same regarding the results gained for pre- and post-operative parameters. Follow-up assessments showed no significant differences in renal function. Based on this, we conclude that mannitol administration to donors does not have a beneficial effect on the prognosis and short-term outcome of transplantation on recipients; therefore, we feel that it should not be advised for kidney donors.
Subject(s)
Kidney Failure, Chronic/surgery , Kidney Transplantation/methods , Kidney/drug effects , Kidney/surgery , Living Donors , Mannitol/administration & dosage , Nephrectomy , Adolescent , Adult , Biomarkers/blood , Blood Urea Nitrogen , Creatinine/blood , Female , Humans , Iran , Kidney/metabolism , Kidney/physiopathology , Kidney Failure, Chronic/diagnosis , Kidney Failure, Chronic/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Nephrectomy/adverse effects , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Urination/drug effects , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) accounts for several cases of in-hospital mortality (over 100 000 deaths annually in the West). Despite the existence of effective prophylaxis guidelines for at-risk patients, the guidelines adherence is missing. METHODS: We evaluated the thromboprophylaxis reception and appropriateness based on the eighth edition of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines on VTE prophylaxis, among hospitalized patients of a World Health Organization (WHO)-collaborating teaching hospital in a 3-month period. RESULTS: From the 904 evaluated cases, 481 entered the study. Appropriate decision on whether to prophylaxe or not, was made in 305 (63.40%), however, complete appropriateness (considering correct regimen type, dosing, and duration) was seen only in 229 patients (47.60%). The ACCP risk for VTE was the strongest predictor of thromboprophylaxis prescription (odds ratio [OR]: 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-5.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our thromboprophylaxis results were comparable to that of Western countries. Improved thromboprophylaxis appropriateness, which requires improving the physicians' thromboprophylaxis awareness and knowledge, could reduce the rate of in-hospital VTE and translate into better patient care.
Subject(s)
Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Venous Thromboembolism/mortality , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Throat pain is a common postoperative complaint. In this study, we aimed to determine its incidence of throat pain after rhinoplasty by general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation (CS). METHODS: We evaluated throat pain in postanesthesia care unit, 4, 12 and 24 hours after surgery using a numerical rating scale (NRS) in a clinical trial. A total number of 252 consecutive females aging over 18 years undergoing GA or CS for elective rhinoplasty entered the study after implementing inclusion and exclusion criteria. A logistic regression model was used to predict having throat pain. RESULTS: The incidence of throat pain after CS and GA in postanesthesia care unit, 4, 12 and 24 hours after rhinoplasty were 34.9% vs. 34.9% (P = 0.99), 27.0% vs. 33.3% (P = 0.27), 14.3% vs. 22.2% (P = 0.10), 10.3% vs. 15.9% (P = 0.19), respectively. The odds ratio for throat pain was statistically significant for nausea/vomiting in postanesthesia care unit (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 5.7-21.8; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Method of anesthesia had no independent role in predicting throat pain. Although larynx of subjects undergoing general anesthesia is manipulated by tracheal intubation, sedation has its specific risks for promoting throat pain after surgery. Therefore, neither CS nor GA is superior in terms of throat pain.
