Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2021
Does persistent (patent) foramen ovale closure reduce the risk of recurrent decompression sickness in scuba divers?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Edvinsson Björn, Thilén Ulf, Nielsen Niels Erik, Christersson Christina, Dellborg Mikael, Eriksson Peter, Hlebowicz Joanna
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Interatrial communication is associated with an increased risk of decompression sickness (DCS) in scuba diving. It has been proposed that there would be a decreased risk of DCS after closure of the interatrial communication, i.e., persistent (patent) foramen ovale (PFO). However, the clinical evidence supporting this is limited.
METHODS: Medical records were reviewed to identify Swedish scuba divers with a history of DCS and catheter closure of an interatrial communication. Thereafter, phone interviews were conducted with questions regarding diving and DCS. All Swedish divers who had had catheter-based PFO-closure because of DCS were followed up, assessing post-closure diving habits and recurrent DCS.
RESULTS: Nine divers, all with a PFO, were included. Eight were diving post-closure. These divers had performed 6,835 dives (median 410, range 140-2,200) before closure, and 4,708 dives (median 413, range 11-2,000) after closure. Seven cases with mild and 10 with serious DCS symptoms were reported before the PFO closure. One diver with a small residual shunt suffered serious DCS post-closure; however, that dive was performed with a provocative diving profile.
CONCLUSION: Divers with PFO and DCS continue to dive after PFO closure and this seems to be fairly safe. Our study suggests a conservative diving profile when there is a residual shunt after PFO closure, to prevent recurrent DCS events.
METHODS: Medical records were reviewed to identify Swedish scuba divers with a history of DCS and catheter closure of an interatrial communication. Thereafter, phone interviews were conducted with questions regarding diving and DCS. All Swedish divers who had had catheter-based PFO-closure because of DCS were followed up, assessing post-closure diving habits and recurrent DCS.
RESULTS: Nine divers, all with a PFO, were included. Eight were diving post-closure. These divers had performed 6,835 dives (median 410, range 140-2,200) before closure, and 4,708 dives (median 413, range 11-2,000) after closure. Seven cases with mild and 10 with serious DCS symptoms were reported before the PFO closure. One diver with a small residual shunt suffered serious DCS post-closure; however, that dive was performed with a provocative diving profile.
CONCLUSION: Divers with PFO and DCS continue to dive after PFO closure and this seems to be fairly safe. Our study suggests a conservative diving profile when there is a residual shunt after PFO closure, to prevent recurrent DCS events.