PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G L Peters

Publications and source records attributed to G L Peters.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Vena cavography with CO(2) versus with iodinated contrast material for inferior vena cava filter placement: a prospective evaluation.

PURPOSE: To determine whether carbon dioxide (CO(2)) vena cavography can safely guide the placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen patients were prospectively enrolled in this study. CO(2 )cavograms were obtained and evaluated for IVC diameter, location of renal veins, and presence of thrombus and venous anomalies. If CO(2 )cavography was judged to be adequate, an IVC filter was deployed. After filter placement, cavography was performed with iodinated contrast material; these images were compared with the CO(2) cavograms. RESULTS: Two patients experienced mild side effects related to venous CO(2) injection. Comparison of cavograms obtained with CO(2) and iodinated contrast-enhanced material showed the caval size to be within 3 mm in all 119 patients. In 116 patients (97.5%), CO(2) cavography was judged to be adequate, and in 115 patients, filters were placed. In three (2.5%) patients, it was necessary to perform iodinated contrast-enhanced cavography before filter deployment. All six cases of venous anomaly and 11 (78.6%) of 14 cases of thrombosis were clearly identified with CO(2) cavography. One filter was maldeployed owing to misinterpretation of the CO(2) cavogram. CONCLUSION: CO(2) cavography is well tolerated, safe, and adequate for identification of the parameters necessary for filter deployment. It is especially valuable in patients with a history of reaction to iodinated contrast material or renal insufficiency.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

The effect of crossing legs on blood pressure: a randomized single-blind cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a theoretical basis for crossing legs to increase blood pressure, there are no published data addressing this question. As a result guidelines for measurement of blood pressure are not consistent in recommending that patients legs should not be crossed during measurement. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of crossing legs on blood pressure. METHODS: Fifty healthy volunteers and 53 patients with hypertension were randomly allocated in a study with a cross-over design to having seated blood pressure measured with their legs in three different positions: feet flat on the floor and legs crossed using two common methods. The blood pressures were assessed by an investigator who was blinded to the leg positions and used a fully automated sphygmomanometer. RESULTS: Crossing legs during blood pressure measurement increased systolic (by average 8.1 mmHg, 95% confidence interval 5.1-11.1 mmHg for method 1; 10.5 mmHg, 6.5-14.6 mmHg for method 2) and diastolic (by 4.5 mmHg, 1.5-7.5 mmHg for method 1; 4.0 mmHg, 2.0-6.0 mmHg for method 2) blood pressures in patients who have hypertension. Crossing legs increased systolic blood pressure (by 2.5 mmHg, 1.3)3.8 mmHg for method 1; 2.3 mmHg, 0.9-3.7 mmHg for method 2) in the healthy volunteers but had little effect on diastolic blood pressure. The cardiovascular-risk class increased for a large number of the hypertensive patients but for fewer of the normotensive subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure increases when legs are crossed and this increases the estimation of cardiovascular risk for many patients. Care should be taken to ensure that the patients feet are flat on the floor when measuring their blood pressure.

Adult↗