- Page 1 and 2:
Medicinsk Teknologivurdering 2001;
- Page 3 and 4:
2 ALTERNATIVER TIL BLODTRANSFUSION
- Page 5 and 6:
4 teknologier til begrænsning af t
- Page 7 and 8:
6 6 Holdninger . . . . . . . . . .
- Page 9 and 10:
ii anvendelse af særligt udstyr og
- Page 11 and 12:
iv Teknologi Klinisk effekt 1) Bivi
- Page 13 and 14:
vi blødning efter hjerteoperation,
- Page 15 and 16:
viii ❖ For autotransfusion/CS var
- Page 17 and 18:
x Autotransfusion/CS Ud fra en klin
- Page 19 and 20:
xii
- Page 21 and 22:
xiv e.g. saline, and then reinfused
- Page 23 and 24:
xvi Effects and side effects of the
- Page 25 and 26:
xviii However, the number of studie
- Page 27 and 28:
xx ❖ Desmopressin, which was inef
- Page 29 and 30:
xxii effectiveness identified. Insu
- Page 31 and 32:
xxiv ❖ The use of blood-saving te
- Page 33 and 34:
8 Udover den danske rapport findes
- Page 35 and 36:
10 var igennem en alsidig vurdering
- Page 37 and 38:
12 1.4 Blodforbrug og risici ved al
- Page 39 and 40:
14 terspørges flere og større kli
- Page 41 and 42:
16 nymitet mellem donor og patient,
- Page 43 and 44:
18 FIGUR 1.1 Forarbejdning af donor
- Page 45 and 46:
20 veau. Sundhedsstyrelsen udgav i
- Page 47 and 48:
22 Samarbejdet skete dels via løbe
- Page 49 and 50:
24 Den danske undersøgelse I Danma
- Page 51 and 52:
26 2) Ikke-bruger-skemaer Der blev
- Page 53 and 54:
28 sin; tranexamic acid; erythropoi
- Page 55 and 56:
30 Aprotinin ISPOT-results (cardiac
- Page 57 and 58:
32 Australian update (cardiac and o
- Page 59 and 60:
34 ❖ In orthopedic surgery EPO re
- Page 61 and 62:
36 Many studies of ANH reported an
- Page 63 and 64:
38 PAD ◆ Analyses on the impact o
- Page 65 and 66: 40 meta-analysis of ANH, and most o
- Page 67 and 68: 42 about 1 to 2 units. Reductions w
- Page 69 and 70: 44 such as nausea, diarrhea and abd
- Page 71 and 72: 46 Autotransfusion/CS devices shoul
- Page 73 and 74: 48 ❖ There was, on average, about
- Page 75 and 76: 50 geneic blood alone. To identify
- Page 77 and 78: 52 Autotransfusion/CS The 8 evaluat
- Page 79 and 80: 54 sion, postoperative recovery of
- Page 81 and 82: 56 tractive cost-utility ratios if
- Page 84 and 85: 5 Anvendelsesmønstre Som led i pro
- Page 86 and 87: FIGUR 5.1 Andel af afdelinger/sygeh
- Page 88 and 89: Evidensbaseret anvendelse? Mønstre
- Page 90 and 91: TABEL 5.2 Brugere og ikke-brugere a
- Page 92 and 93: TABEL 5.3 Andel afdelinger inden fo
- Page 94 and 95: lev anvendt “rutinemæssigt” el
- Page 96 and 97: TABEL 5.6 Anvendelsesform af autotr
- Page 98 and 99: Hvem beslutter? Ifølge tabel 5.8 e
- Page 100 and 101: 6 Holdninger Ikke-brugeres holdning
- Page 102 and 103: TABEL 6.2 Begrundelser for ikke-bru
- Page 104 and 105: mærkninger omhandlede i flest tilf
- Page 106 and 107: Med hensyn til fremtidig brug af PA
- Page 108 and 109: 7 De samlede ISPOT-resultater i et
- Page 110 and 111: ingen af omkostningseffektiviteten
- Page 112 and 113: gevinst contra omkostninger og andr
- Page 114 and 115: 8 Bilag 8.1 ISPOT-gruppen ISPOT-inv
- Page 118 and 119: 9 Referencer (1) Fergusson D, Blair
- Page 120 and 121: (26) Jørgensen JR, Taaning EB. Reg
- Page 122 and 123: (56) Boldt J, Zickmann B, Czeke A,
- Page 124 and 125: (81) Hardy JF, Desroches J, Belisle
- Page 126 and 127: (106) Spyt TJ, Weerasena NA, Bain W
- Page 128 and 129: (132) Price TH, Goodnough LT, Vogle
- Page 130 and 131: (158) Bonnet MC, Julia JM, Mathieu-
- Page 132 and 133: (186) Schmidt H, Mortensen PE, Føl
- Page 134 and 135: (214) Griffith LD, Billman GF, Dail
- Page 136 and 137: (245) Huber TS, McGorray SP, Carlto