Banner

Evaluation of pulmonary function in renal transplant recipients and chronic renal failure patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis

Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis (2013) 62, 145–150 • 2013
العودة
معلومات البحث
المؤلفون Mohamed E. Abdalla , Mohamed AbdElgawad , Alsayed Alnahal
الكلمات المفتاحية Not Available
المجلة العلمية Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis (2013) 62, 145–150
الناشر Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis (2013) 62, 145–150
المجلد Not Available
العدد 62
الصفحات 145-150
publication.type International
رابط البحث Not Available
المواد المرفقة Not Available
الملخص
Abstract Background: Impaired pulmonary function in patients on hemodialysis may be caused
by an underlying pulmonary disease, however the effects of hemodialysis treatment and kidney
transplantation are not well understood.
Aim of the work: The aim of this study was to evaluate pulmonary function among patients with
chronic renal failure (CRF) undergoing hemodialysis and patients with kidney transplant.
Patients and methods: This study was conducted on 60 subjects. They were classified into 3 groups:
Hemodialysis group (HDG) included 20 patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) on regular
hemodialysis for at least six months and were clinically stable. Transplant group (TG) included 20
patients who had undergone kidney transplant at least six months earlier and were also clinically stable.
Control group (CG) included 20 apparently healthy subjects. All subjects underwent pulmonary
function testing; including resting spirometry included flow volume loop and Maximal Voluntary Ventilation
(MVV), measurement of lung volumes and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO)
using single breath technique, Six Minute Walking Test (6MWT) and arterial blood gases (ABG).
Results: There was a significant difference between HDG, TG and CG regarding FVC% of predicted,
FEV1% of predicted, FEF 25–75% of predicted, PEFR% of predicted and MVV% of predicted.
Also there was a statistically significant difference between HDG, TG and CG regarding
RV% of predicted, TLC% of predicted and RV/TLC%. Although FVC% of predicted and
FEV1% of predicted were within the normal range in the 3 studied groups, there was a statistically