مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رساني علوم و فناوري - مقايسه اثر استروييد خوراكي و وريدي در پيشگيري از پس زدگي

چكيده لاتين :

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Induction of anti rejection therapy in renal transplanted patients is performed in various forms and there is a great difference in steroid administration. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of oral and intravenous prednisolone (Methyl prednisolone) in prevention of rejection during first two weeks of hospitalization. METHODS: In this clinical trial study during one year in a randomized trial, 60 patients in two groups (31 for parenteral route and 29 for oral route) were studied for rate of rejection. Also, according to gender, age (less or more than 35 years old), clinical manifestations, time of rejection (first or second week) and the results of isotope scan (DTPA), the findings were assessed. FINDINGS: It was found eight cases of rejection in oral group and six cases in parenteral one without any significant difference. Also, there was no significant difference between two groups for other parameters. The only meaningful differenceBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Induction of anti rejection therapy in renal transplanted patients is performed in various forms and there is a great difference in steroid administration. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of oral and intravenous prednisolone (Methyl prednisolone) in prevention of rejection during first two weeks of hospitalization. METHODS: In this clinical trial study during one year in a randomized trial, 60 patients in two groups (31 for parenteral route and 29 for oral route) were studied for rate of rejection. Also, according to gender, age (less or more than 35 years old), clinical manifestations, time of rejection (first or second week) and the results of isotope scan (DTPA), the findings were assessed. FINDINGS: It was found eight cases of rejection in oral group and six cases in parenteral one without any significant difference. Also, there was no significant difference between two groups for other parameters. The only meaningful difference was for isotope scan that was true for all rejections of the parenteral group but in only 25% of rejections of the oral group, it showed the problem (p=0.049). CONCLUSION: In short term, there is no significant difference between two methods. But because sample size was small, this study should be repeated with larger one. was for isotope scan that was true for all rejections of the parenteral group but in only 25% of rejections of the oral group, it showed the problem (p=0.049). CONCLUSION: In short term, there is no significant difference between two methods. But because sample size was small, this study should be repeated with larger one.