No abstract

Intracranial pressure monitoring (ICP) is based on the doctrine proposed by Monroe and Kellie centuries ago. With the advancement of technology and science, various invasive and non-invasive modalities of monitoring ICP continue to be developed. An ideal monitor to track ICP should be easy to use, accurate, reliable, reproducible, inexpensive and should not be associated with infection or haemorrhagic complications. Although the transducers connected to the extra ventricular drainage continue to be Gold Standard, its association with the likelihood of infection and haemorrhage have led to the search for alternate non-invasive methods of monitoring ICP. While Camino transducers, Strain gauge micro transducer based ICP monitoring devices and the Spiegelberg ICP monitor are the emerging technology in invasive ICP monitoring, optic nerve sheath diameter measurement, venous opthalmodynamometry, tympanic membrane displacement, tissue resonance analysis, tonometry, acoustoelasticity, distortion-product oto-acoustic emissions, trans cranial doppler, electro encephalogram, near infra-red spectroscopy, pupillometry, anterior fontanelle pressure monitoring, skull elasticity, jugular bulb monitoring, visual evoked response and radiological based assessment of ICP are the non-invasive methods which are assessed against the gold standard.

Although alternative medicines are widely used within the general population, the extent of their use within the dialysis population is unknown. It is possible that dialysis patients may be more likely to turn towards alternative therapies in view of the chronicity of their disease. In addition, this particular patient population could be at an increased risk of toxicity from these therapies due to an absence of renal excretion. A detailed assessment of complementary and alternative medicine use in our dialysis patients revealed that 18% of our patients had used or were using some form of alternative medicine therapy.An additional 63% of our patients, however, were willing to use a complementary or alternative medication. Our results suggest that hemodialysis patients are extremely receptive to the use of such therapies and are therefore exposed to all their potential benefit and harm.

In treating patients with end-stage renal disease, the dialyzer may be used on multiple occasions rather than once. Long-term effects of this practice are unknown. We report 259 and 1,059 successive patients from facilities practicing reuse in Cincinnati and Detroit, followed, respectively, for 535 and 2,209 patient years. The morbidity was relatively low, expressed by the number of hospital admissions (1.63 and 2.19/year) and by days in hospital (14.24 and 22.71/year), respectively. In Cincinnati the unadjusted case fatality rate was 70% of that in the Ohio Valley Renal Disease Network, in Detroit it was 96% of that in the Michigan Renal Network. There were no adverse long-term effects of multiple use of dialyzers.