Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Chirurgica > Past Issues > Minerva Chirurgica 2006 August;61(4) > Minerva Chirurgica 2006 August;61(4):315-323



A Journal on Surgery

Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,877

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0026-4733

Online ISSN 1827-1626


Minerva Chirurgica 2006 August;61(4):315-323


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

Alat I. 1, Türker G. 2, Akpinar M. B. 1, Tas¸kapan H. 3, Kekilli E. 4, Eg˘ri. M. 5, Aydin Ö. M. 3

1 Inönü University Medical Faculty, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Malatya, Turkey
2 Inönü University Medical Faculty, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Malatya, Turkey
3 Inönü University Medical Faculty, Department of Nephrology, Malatya, Turkey
4 Inönü University Medical Faculty, Department of Nucleer Medicine, Malatya, Turkey
5 Inönü University Medical Faculty, Department of Public Health, Malatya, Turkey

Aim. 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.

language: English


top of page