4.2 Article

Diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle is associated with pulmonary edema after renal transplantation

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 57, 期 9, 页码 1154-1160

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12168

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23592296] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Post-operative pulmonary complications are associated with high mortality and graft loss in renal transplantation recipients. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is not uncommon in patients with chronic renal failure, including those with preserved left ventricular systolic function. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and incidence of post-operative pulmonary edema in renal transplantation recipients with preserved left ventricular systolic function. Methods Pre-operative left ventricular function and incidence of pulmonary edema were retrospectively studied in 209 patients who underwent living-donor renal transplantation between January 2010 and October 2012. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions were evaluated by ejection fraction and E/E' ratio, retrospectively, using transthoracic echocardiography. Pulmonary edema was defined by evidence of pulmonary congestion on the chest X-ray together with PaO2/FiO(2) ratio < 300 mmHg. Results Eleven out of 190 (5.8%) renal transplantation patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function developed post-operative pulmonary edema. Patients with pulmonary edema had a significantly higher geometric mean (95% confidence interval) of E/E' ratio than those without pulmonary edema [17.8 (14.1-22.5) vs. 11.1 (10.6-11.7), P = 0.001]. Conclusion Pre-operative left ventricular diastolic dysfunction correlated with the development of post-operative pulmonary edema in renal transplantation recipients. Meticulous intraoperative volume therapy is important to avoid post-operative pulmonary edema in such patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据