Search

Your search keyword '"Bahar, İlhan"' showing total 85 results
Start Over Author "Bahar, İlhan"
85 results on '"Bahar, İlhan"'

14. Tracheostomy practices in intensive care units in Turkey: Turkish Thoracic Society critical care assembly point prevelance trial

Author

KÖMÜR, ÖZGÜR, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, HANCI, VOLKAN, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, MANDAL, TUĞBA, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, NALBANT, AHMET, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, AYAYDIN MÜRTEZAOĞLU, EMİNE SEVİL, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, KARAKURT, SAİT, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, MUZAFFER, SARIAYDIN, GÜNAY, ERSİN, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, SAGMEN, SEDA BEYHAN, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, CESUR, SİNEM, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, BALBAY, ÖNER ABİDİN, GEDİK, ENDER, ŞERİFOĞLU, İREM, GÜRSEL, GÜL, ŞEN, PELİN, AKPINAR, SERDAR, OKUR, MURAT EMRE, SAVRAN, YUSUF, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, ERGİN ÖZCAN, PERİHAN, GÜLLÜ, MEHMET NEZİR, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, TALAN, LEYLA, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, ERGÜN, RECAİ, KIRAKLI, SAMİ CENK, ATAMAN, SENA, GÜL, FETHİ, ARSLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, CİNEL, İSMAİL HAKKI, ÖZMEN SÜNER, KEZBAN, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, KOCA, UĞUR, BIYIKLI, OBEN, ÇALIŞKAN, GÜLBAHAR, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, SOYTÜRK, AYŞE NUR, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, ATEŞ, GÜNGÖR, COŞKUN, GÜVEN, EDİBOĞLU, ÖZLEM, YAZICIOĞLU MOÇİN, ÖZLEM, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, SALTÜRK, CÜNEYT, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, ERGAN, BEGÜM, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, ÖNALAN, TUĞBA, ÖZÇELİK, ZERRİN, TURAN, SEMA, KARA, ATİLLA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, DURU BÜLBÜL, SELMA, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DİNÇER, METİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, ÖZKARAKAŞ, HÜSEYİN, BAHAR, İLHAN, CENGİZ, MELİKE, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, ÇELİK, BURCU, GAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜM, KIR, GÜLAY, BİNDAL, AHMET, AKAN, BELGİN, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, YILDIRIM, FATMA, BAŞAK, BURCU, ARSLAN, ZELİHA, ARSLAN ULUKAN, ZELİHA, EFE, SERDAR, SUNGUR, MURAT, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, HOŞGÜN, DERYA, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, TUNÇAY, EYLEM, GÖKŞENOĞLU, NEZİHE ÇİFTARSLAN, IRMAK, İLİM, DATLI, UTKU, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, AKDAĞ, DEVRİM, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, HANCI, PERVİN, KAYA, ESAT KIVANÇ, GÜVEN, PINAR, SAZAK, HİLAL, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, DOĞANAY, ZAHİDE, and KARAKOÇ, EMRE

Published
2018

15. Türkiye’deki Yoğun Bakım Ünitelerindeki Trakeostomi Uygulamaları: Türk Toraks Derneği Solunum Yetmezliği ve Yoğun Bakım Çalışma Grubu Nokta Prevalans Çalışması

Author

KARAKOÇ, EMRE, HANCI, VOLKAN, BALBAY, ÖNER ABİDİN, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, KARAKURT, SAİT, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, SAGMEN, SEDA BEYHAN, ZAHİDE, DOĞANAY, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, OKUR, MURAT EMRE, AKPINAR, SERDAR, ŞEN, PELİN, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, SAZAK, HİLAL, SAVRAN, YUSUF, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, GÜRSEL, GÜL, GÜLLÜ, MEHMET NEZİR, GÜVEN, PINAR, İREM, ŞERİFOĞLU, CESUR, SİNEM, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, KAYA KIVANÇ, ESAT, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, COŞKUN, GÜVEN, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, TALAN, LEYLA, HANCI, PERVİN, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, DEVRİM, AKDAĞ, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, AYŞE NUR, SOYTÜRK, GÜLBAHAR, ÇALIŞKAN, GİRGİN KELEBEK, NERMİN, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, MUZAFFER, SARIAYDIN, GÜNAY, ERSİN, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, GEDİK, ENDER, MÜRTEZAOĞLU AYAYDIN, EMİNE SEVİL, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, NALBANT, AHMET, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, MANDAL, TUĞBA, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, BAHAR, İLHAN, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, CENGİZ, MELİKE, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, KOCA, UĞUR, ÇELİK, BURCU, GAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜM, KIR, GÜLAY, AHMET, BİNDAL, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, AKAN, BELGİN, BIYIKLI, OBEN, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, ERGÜN, RECAİ, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, DATLI, UTKU, EDİPOĞLU, ÖZLEM, YAZICIOĞLU MOÇİN, ÖZLEM, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, SALTÜRK, CÜNEYT, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, KIRAKLI, SAMİ CENK, ERGAN, BEGÜM, IRMAK, İLİM, GÖKŞENOĞLU CİFTARSLAN, NEZİHE, ATAMAN, SENA, EYLEM, TUNÇAY, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, GÜNGÖR, ATEŞ, DERYA, HOŞGÜN, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, SUNGUR, MURAT, EFE, SERDAR, ULUKAN ARSLAN, ZELİHA, GÜL, FETHİ, BAŞARIK AYDOĞAN, BURCU, ÖNALAN, TUGBA, ARSLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, ÖZÇELİK, ZERRİN, TURAN, SEMA, CİNEL, İSMAİL HAKKI, ÖZMEN SÜNER, KEZBAN, KARA, İSKENDER, KARA, ATİLLA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, YILDIRIM, FATMA, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, BÜLBÜL DURU, SELMA, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DİNÇER, METİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, ÖZKARAKAŞ, HÜSEYİN, and ÖZCAN ERGİN, PERİHAN

Published
2018

16. TÜRKIYE’DE YOĞUN BAKIM ÜNITELERINDE VENTILATÖR ILIŞKILI PNÖMONIYI ÖNLEMEK IÇIN ALINAN GÜNCEL ÖNLEMLER: TÜRK TORAKS DERNEĞI SOLUNUM YETMEZLIĞI VE YOĞUN BAKIM ÇALIŞMA GRUBU NOKTA PREVALANS ÇALIŞMASI

Author

AKDAĞ, DEVRİM, ERGAN, BEGÜM, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, TUNÇAY, EYLEM, KARA, İSKENDER, KULTUFAN, SEMA, ÖZÇELİK, ZERİN, SEYDAOĞLU, GÜLŞAH, ÖNALAN, TUĞBA, SALTÜRK, CÜNEYT, EDİPOĞLU, ÖZLEM, MOÇİN YAZICOĞLU, ÖZLEM, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, MANDAL, TUĞBA, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, NALBANT, AHMET, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, MÜRTEZAOĞLU AYAYDIN, EMİNE SEVİL, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, KARAKURT, SAİT, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, MUZAFFER, SARIAYDIN, GÜNAY, ERSİN, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, SAGMEN, SEDA BEYHAN, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, CESUR, SİNEM, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, BALBAY, ÖNER ABİDİN, GEDİK, ENDER, ŞERİFOĞLU, İREM, GÜRSEL, GÜL, ŞEN, PELİN, AKPINAR, SERDAR, OKUR, MURAT EMRE, SAVRAN, YUSUF, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, ÖZCAN ERGİN, PERİHAN, GÜLLÜ, MEHMET NEZİR, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, TALAN, LEYLA, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, ERGÜN, RECAİ, TUKSAVUL, FEVZİYE, KIRAKLI, CENK, ATAMAN, SENA, ARSLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, GÜL, FETHİ, CİNER, İSMAİL, SÜNER ÖZMEN, KEZBAN, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, KOCA, UĞUR, BIYIKLI, OBEN, ÇALIŞKAN, GÜLBAHAR, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, SOYTÜRK, AYŞE NUR, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, ATEŞ, GÜNGÖR, ÇOŞKUN, GÜVEN, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, KARAKOÇ, EMRE, HANCI, VOLKAN, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, DOĞANAY, ZAHİDE, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, SAZAK, HİLAL, GÜVEN, PINAR, KAYA, ESAT KIVANÇ, HANCI, PERVİN, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, DATLİ, UTKU, IRMAK, İLİM, GÖKŞENOĞLU, NEZİHE, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, HOŞGUN, DERYA, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, SUNGUR, MURAT, EFE, SERDAR, ULUKAN, ZEHRA, BAŞARIK AYDOĞAN, BURCU, YILDIRIM, FATMA, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, AKAN, BELGİN, BİNDAL, AHMET, KIR, GÜLAY, GAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜM, ÇELİK, BURCU, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, CENGİZ, MELİKE, BAHAR, İLHAN, ÖZKARATAŞ, HÜSEYİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, DİNÇER, METİN, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DURU BÜLBÜL, SELMA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, and KARA, ATİLLA

Abstract

Objectives: The inadequate quality and nature of sleep is a commonly reported problem among hospitalized patients. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of progressive muscle relaxation training program on sleep quality, sleep state, pain and life quality of patients who underwent pulmonary resection.

Published
2018

17. TÜRKIYE’DE YOĞUN BAKIM ÜNITELERINDEKI TRAKEOSTOMI UYGULAMALARI: TÜRK TORAKS DERNEĞI SOLUNUM YETMEZLIĞI VE YOĞUN BAKIM ÇALIŞMA GRUBU NOKTA PREVALANS ÇALIŞMASI

Author

ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, ATAMAN, SENA, ERGÜN, RECAİ, ARSLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, CİNER, İSMAİL, SÜNER ÖZMEN, KEZBAN, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, TALAN, LEYLA, KOCA, UĞUR, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, GÜLLÜ, MEHMET NEZİR, ÖZCAN ERGİN, PERİHAN, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, SAVRAN, YUSUF, AKPINAR, SERDAR, ŞEN, PELİN, GÜRSEL, GÜL, BIYIKLI, OBEN, ŞERİFOĞLU, İREM, GEDİK, ENDER, BALBAY, ÖNER ABİDİN, ÇALIŞKAN, GÜLBAHAR, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, SOYTÜRK, AYŞE NUR, AKBAŞ, TURKAY, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, ATEŞ, GÜNGÖR, ÇOŞKUN, GÜVEN, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, GÜL, FETHİ, KIRAKLI, CENK, CESUR, SİNEM, KARAKOÇ, EMRE, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, SAGMEN, SEDA BEYHAN, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, GÜNAY, ERSİN, SARIAYDIN, MUZAFFER, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, KARAKURT, SAİT, BİNDAL, AHMET, KIR, GÜLAY, GAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜM, ÇELİK, BURCU, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, CENGİZ, MELİKE, BAHAR, İLHAN, ÖZKARATAŞ, HÜSEYİN, DİNÇER, METİN, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DURU BÜLBÜL, SELMA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, KARA, ATİLLA, KARA, İSKENDER, TURAN UZUNTAŞ, SEMA, ÖZÇELİK, ZERİN, ÖNALAN, TUĞBA, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, ERGAN, BEGÜM, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, SALTÜRK, CÜNEYT, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, MOÇİN YAZICOĞLU, ÖZLEM, EDİPOĞLU, ÖZLEM, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, HANCI, VOLKAN, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, DOĞANAY, ZAHİDE, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, SAZAK, HİLAL, GÜVEN, PINAR, AYAYDIN MÜRTEZAOĞLU, EMİNE SEVİL, KAYA, ESAT KIVANÇ, HANCI, PERVİN, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, AKAN, BELGİN, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, YILDIRIM, FATMA, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, BAŞARIK AYDOĞAN, BURCU, ULUKAN, ZEHRA, EFE, SERDAR, NALBANT, AHMET, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, MANDAL, TUĞBA, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, SUNGUR, MURAT, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, HOŞGUN, DERYA, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, TUNCAY, EYLEM, GÖKŞENOĞLU, NEZİHE, IRMAK, İLİM, DATLİ, UTKU, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, and AKDAĞ, DEVRİM

Published
2018

20. ABCDEF Bundle: An Undiscovered Golden Approach for Acute Care Patients in Turkey.

Author

Elay, Gülseren, Akbudak, İsmail Hakkı, and Bahar, İlhan

Subjects
INTENSIVE care units, PATIENT care, PAIN management, DEATH rate
Abstract

Objective: The ABCDEF (Assess, prevent, and manage Pain, Both spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials, Choice of analgesia and sedation, Delirium: assess, prevent, and manage, Early mobility and Exercise, and Family engagement and empowerment) bundle is a path for optimal resource utilization. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge level and views of physicians working at the intensive care units (ICUs) in Turkey, a developing country, on the use of ABCDEF bundle. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to ICU physicians in Turkey, using Supplemental Digital Content 1, on June 20, 2018. The survey was terminated and deactivated on September 30, 2018. Results: A multidisciplinary team oriented for compliance with the ABCDEF bundle was not found to be present in any of the responding ICUs in Turkey. Of 461 participants, 161 (35.1%) were knowledgeable about the bundle. The bundle could not be used due to lack of a team and shortage of trained personnel. Conclusion: The rates of using scales proposed by the ABCDEF bundle were remarkably low although most participants acknowledged that the use of protocols and scales leads to decreased morbidity and mortality rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

21. Patient profile at intensive care units in Turkey: 922 patients multicenter prevalence study

Author

SALTÜRK, CÜNEYT, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, CESUR, SİNEM, YOLAÇAN, Hülya, HANCI, Pervin, Karaçayır, Yücel, KAYA, ESAT KIVANÇ, SAĞMEN, Seda Beyhan, GÜVEN, Pınar, SAZAK, HİLAL, Önalan, Tuğba, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, Gaygısız, Ümmügülsün, BALBAY, ÖNER ABİDİN, Duru Bülbül, Selma, EDİBOĞLU, ÖZLEM, Dağlı, Emine, SEYDAOĞLU, GÜLŞAH, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, GEDİK, ENDER, AYDEMİR, Semih, Özçelik, Zerrin, COŞKUN, Güven, ATEŞ, Güngör, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, CENGİZ, MELİKE, Bahar, İlhan, Özkarakaş, Hüseyin, TURAN, SEMA, Kara, İskender, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, ERGAN, BEGÜM, Kara, Atilla, GÜNAY, ERSİN, SARIAYDIN, Muzaffer, SAĞLAM, Dursun Ali, KARAKURT, SAİT, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, Elay, Gülseren, Özdemir, Levent, Akdağ, Devrim, Datlı, Utku, Irmak, İlim, Gökşenoğlu, Nezihe, Tuncay, Eylem, Akan, Belgin, AYAYDIN MÜRTEZAOĞLU, EMİNE SEVİL, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, NALBANT, AHMET, YAĞMURKAYA, Öznur, MANDAL, Tuğba, Karadeniz, Nurhan, Kahveci, Kadriye, DİNÇER, METİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, DOĞANAY, Zahide, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, HANCI, VOLKAN, İKİDAĞ, Belgin, Hoşgün, Derya, ŞERİFOĞLU, İrem, GÜRSEL, GÜL, ŞEN, Pelin, AKPINAR, Serdar, KARAKOÇ, EMRE, TOKUR, Murat Emre, SAVRAN, YUSUF, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, ERGİN ÖZCAN, PERİHAN, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, GÜLLÜ, MEHMET NEZİR, SUNGUR, MURAT, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, TALAN, Leyla, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, Arslan, Zeliha, BAŞARIK AYDOĞAN, BURCU, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, Yıldırım, Fatma, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, ERGÜN, RECAİ, TUKSAVUL, Fevziye, KIRAKLI, SAMİ CENK, ATAMAN, Sena, GÜL, Fethi, ARSLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, CİNEL, İSMAİL HAKKI, ÖZMEN SÜNER, Kezban, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, KOCA, UĞUR, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, BIYIKLI, Oben, ÇALIŞKAN, Gülbahar, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, Yazıcıoğlu Moçin, Özlem, Kır, Gülay, Bindal, Ahmet, SOYTÜRK, Ayşe Nur, TİRYAKİ, Civan, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, Çelik, Burcu, SÖZÜTEK, Didem, and TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU

Published
2017

22. Türkiye’de yoğun bakım ünitelerinde takip edilen hasta profili: 922 hastalı çok merkezli nokta prevalans çalışması

Author

KAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜN, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, ERGAN, BEGÜM, SARIAYDIN, MUZAFFER, ERGİN ÖZCAN, PERİHAN, GEDİK, ENDER, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, ŞERİFOĞLU, İREM, ŞEN, PELİN, AKPINAR, SERDAR, OKUR, MURAT EMRE, AYAYDIN MÜRTEZAOĞLU, EMİNE SEVİL, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, ÇALIŞKAN, GÜLBAHAR, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, NALBANT, AHMET, GÜLLÜ, MEHMET NEZİR, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, MANDAL, TUĞBA, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, SAVRAN, YUSUF, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, CESUR, SİNEM, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, GÜNAY, ERSİN, HANCI, VOLKAN, CİNEL, İSMAİL HAKKI, TALAN, LEYLA, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, KARAKOÇ, EMRE, KARAKURT, SAİT, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, ÇOŞKUN, GÜVEN, ATEŞ, GÜNGÖR, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, SOYTÜRK, AYŞE NUR, BEYHAN SAGMEN, SEDA, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, BIYIKLI, OBEN, BALBAY, ÖNER ABİDİN, ARSLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, ÖZMEN SÜNER, KEZBAN, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, ERGÜN, RECAİ, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, KOCA, UĞUR, TAKSAVUL, FEVZİYE, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, GÜL, FETHİ, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, ATAMAN, SENA, DOĞANAY, ZAHİDE, GÜRSEL, GÜL, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, ÖNALAN, TUĞBA, EDİPOĞLU, ÖZLEM, SALTÜK, CÜNEYT, SEYDAOĞLU, GÜLŞAH, ÖZÇELİK, ZERRİN, TURAN, SEMA, KARA, İSKENDER, KARA, ATİLLA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, DURU BÜLBÜL, SELMA, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DİNÇER, METİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, ÖZKARAKAŞ, HÜSEYİN, BAHAR, İLHAN, CENGİZ, MELİKE, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, ÇELİK, BURCU, KIR, GÜLAY, BİNDAL, AHMET, AKAN, BELGİN, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, YILDIRIM, FATMA, ARSLAN ULUKAN, ZELİHA, EFE, SERDAR, SUNGUR, MURAT, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, HOŞGÜN, DERYA, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, TURNCAY, EYLEM, ÇİFTARSLAN GÖKŞENOĞLU, NEZİHE, IRMAK, İLİM, DATLI, UTKU, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, AKDAĞ, DEVRİM, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, HANCI, PERVİN, KAYA, ESAT KIVANÇ, GÜVEN, PINAR, SAZAK, HALİL, KIRAKLI, CENK, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, YAZICIOĞLU MOÇİN, ÖZLEM, and BAŞARIK, BURCU

Published
2017

23. Türkiyede Yoğun Bakım Ünitelerinde takipedilen hasta profili:922 hastalınçok merkezli nokta prevalans çalışması

Author

SAVRAN, YUSUF, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, ERGİN ÖZCAN, PERİHAN, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, TALAN, LEYLA, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, ERGÜN, RECAİ, TUKSAVUL, FEVZİYE, KIRAKLI, CENK, ATAMAN, SENA, GÜL, FETHİ, ASLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, CİNEL, İSMAİL HAKKI, ÖZMEN SÜNER, KEZBAN, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, KOCA, UĞUR, BIYIKLI, OBEN, ÇALIŞKAN, GÜLBAHAR, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, SOUTÜRK, AYŞE NUR, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, ATEŞ, GÜNGÖR, COŞKUN, GÜVEN, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, KARAKOÇ, EMRE, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, DOĞANAY, ZAHİDE, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, GÜL, MEHMET NEZİR, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, HANCI, VOLKAN, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, MANDAL, TUĞBA, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, NALBANT, AHMET, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, AYAYDYDIN MURTAZAOĞLU, EMİNE SEVİL, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, KARAKURT, SAİT, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, SARIAYDIN, MUZAFFER, GÜNAY, ERSİN, ERGAN, BEGÜM, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, BEYHAN SAGMEN, SEDA, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, CESUR, SİNEM, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, BALBAY ÖNER, ABİDİN, GEDİK, ENDER, ŞERİFOĞLU, İREM, GÜRSEL, GÜL, ŞEN, PELİN, AKPINAR, SERDAR, OKUR, MURAT EMRE, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, SAZAK, HİLAL, GÜVEN, PINAR, KAYA ESAT, KIVANÇ, HANCI, PERVİN, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, AKDAĞ, DEVRİM, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, DATLI, ÜTKU, IRMAK, İLİM, ÇİFTARSLAN GÖKŞENOĞLU, NEZİHE, TUNCAY, EYLEM, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, HOŞGÜN, DERYA, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, SUNGUR, MURAT, EFE, SERDAR, ARSLAN ULUKAN, ZELİHA, BAŞARIK AYDOĞAN, BURCU, YILDIRM, FATMA, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, AKAN, BELGİN, BİNDAL, AHMET, KIR, GÜLAY, GAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜN, ÇELİK, BURCU, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, CENGİZ, MELİKE, BAHAR, İLHAN, ÖZKARAKAŞ, HÜSEYİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, DİNÇER, METİN, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DURU BÜLBÜL, SELMA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, KARA, ATİLLA, KARA, İSKENDER, TURAN, SEMA, ÖZÇELİK, ZERRİN, SEYDAOĞLU, GÜLŞAH, SALTÜRK, CÜNEYT, EDİBOĞLU, ÖZLEM, ÖNALAN, TUĞBA, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, and YAZICIOĞLU MOÇİN, ÖZLEM

Published
2017

24. Türkiye’de Yoğun Bakım ÜnitelerindeGüncel Durum: 68 Merkezin Katıldığı NoktaPrevalans Çalışması

Author

GÜL, FETHİ, YAZICIOĞLU MOÇİN, ÖZLEM, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, ÖNALAN, TUĞBA, EDİPOĞLU, ÖZLEM, SALTÜK, CÜNEYT, SEYDAOĞLU, GÜLŞAH, ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, ÖZÇELİK, ZERRİN, TURAN, SEMA, KARA, İSKENDER, KARA, ATİLLA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, DURU BÜLBÜL, SELMA, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DİNÇER, METİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, ÖZKARAKAŞ, HÜSEYİN, BAHAR, İLHAN, CENGİZ, MELİKE, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, ÇELİK, BURCU, GAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜN, KIR, GÜLAY, BİNDAL, AHMET, AKAN, BELGİN, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, YILDIRIM, FATMA, BAŞARIK AYDOĞAN, BURCU, ARSLAN ULUKAN, ZELİHA, EFE, SERDAR, SUNGUR, MURAT, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, HOŞGÜN, DERYA, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, TUNÇAY, EYLEM, ÇİFTARSLAN GÖKŞENOĞLU, NEZİHE, IRMAK, İLİM, DATLI, UTKU, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, AKDAĞ, DEVRİM, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, HANCI, PERVİN, ESAT, KIVANÇ KAYA, GÜVEN, PINAR, SAZAK, HİLAL, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, DOĞANAY, ZAHİDE, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, HANCI, VOLKAN, KARAKOÇ, EMRE, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, COŞKUN, GÜVEN, ATEŞ, GÜNGÖR, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, SOYTÜRK, AYŞE NUR, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, ÇALIŞKAN, GÜLBAHAR, BIYIKLI, OBEN, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, KOCA, UĞUR, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, ÖZMEN SÜNER, KEZBAN, CİNEL, İSMAİL HAKKI, SENA, ATAMAN, CENK, KIRAKLI, TUKSAVUL, FEVZİYE, RECAİ, ERGÜN, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, TALAN, LEYLA, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, GÜLLÜ, MEHMET NEZİR, ERGİN ÖZCAN, PERİHAN, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, SAVRAN, YUSUF, OKUR, MURAT EMRE, AKPINAR, SERDAR, ŞEN, PELİN, GÜRSEL, GÜL, İREM, ŞERİFOĞLU, GEDİK, ENDER, ABİDİN BALBAY, ÖNER, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, CESUR, SİNEM, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, SEDA BEYHAN, SAGMEN, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, ERGAN, BEGÜM, GÜNAY, ERSİN, MUAFFER, SARIAYDIN, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, KARAKURT, SAİT, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, AYAYDIN MÜRTEZAOĞLU, EMİNE SEVİL, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, NALBANT, AHMET, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, MANDAL, TUĞBA, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, and AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN

Published
2017

25. Türkiye’de yoğun bakım ünitelerinde güncel durum: 68 merkezin katıldığı nokta prevalans çalışması

Author

ARIKAN, HÜSEYİN, ÇELİKEL, TURGAY HÜSEYİN, ERYÜKSEL, SEMİHA EMEL, KARAKURT, SAİT, SAĞLAM, DURSUN ALİ, SARIAYDIN, MUZAFFER, GÜNAY, ERSİN, ERGAN, BEGÜM, BACAKOĞLU, FEZA, KORKMAZ EKREN, PERVİN, BEYHAN SAGMEN, SEDA, YOLAÇAN, HÜLYA, CESUR, SİNEM, AKBAŞ, TÜRKAY, BALBAY, ÖNER ABİDİN, GEDİK, ENDER, ŞERİFOĞLU, İREM, GÜRSEL, GÜL, ŞEN, PELİN, AKPINAR, SERDAR, OKUR, MURAT EMRE, SAVRAN, YUSUF, ORHUN, GÜNSELİ, ERGİN ÖZCAN, PERİHAN, GÜL, MEHMET NEZİR, YALÇINSOY, MURAT, TALAN, LEYLA, ALTINTAŞ, NERİMAN DEFNE, YILMAZ, NAFİYE, ERGÜN, RECAİ, TUKSAVUL, FEVZİYE, KIRAKLI, CENK, ATAMAN, SENA, GÜL, FETHİ, ASLANTAŞ, MUSTAFA KEMAL, ÖZMEN SÜNER, KEZBAN, ÇİLEDAĞ, AYDIN, KOCA, UĞUR, BIYIKLI, OBEN, ÇALIŞKAN, GÜLBAHAR, KELEBEK GİRGİN, NERMİN, SOYTÜRK, AYŞE NUR, TİRYAKİ, CİVAN, ATEŞ, GÜNGÖR, ÇOŞKUN, GÜVEN, SÖZÜTEK, DİDEM, KARAKOÇ, EMRE, KÖMÜRCÜ, ÖZGÜR, DOĞANAY, ZAHİDE, AYDEMİR, YUSUF, AYGENCEL BIKMAZ, ŞAHENDER GÜLBİN, AYDEMİR, SEMİH, SAZAK, HİLAL, GÜVEN, PINAR, KAYA, ESAT KIVANÇ, HANCI, PERVİN, TOPELİ İSKİT, ARZU, KARAÇAYIR, YÜCEL, ELAY, GÜLSEREN, ÖZDEMİR, LEVENT, AKDAĞ, DEVRİM, ZERMAN, AVŞAR, DATLI, UTKU, IRMAK, İLİM, ÇİFTARSLAN GÖKŞENOĞLU, NEZİHE, TUNCAY, EYLEM, KARADENİZ, NURHAN, HOŞGÜN, DERYA, İZDEŞ, SEVAL, TEMEL, ŞAHİN, SUNGUR, MURAT, EFE, SERDAR, ARSLAN ULUKAN, ZELİHA, BAŞARIK, BURCU, YILDIRIM, FATMA, ÖZKOÇAK TURAN, IŞIL, BİNDAL, AHMET, KIR, GÜLAY, GAYGISIZ, ÜMMÜGÜLSÜN, ÇELİK, BURCU, RAMAZANOĞLU, ATİLLA, CENGİZ, MELİKE, BAHAR, İLHAN, ÖZKARAKAŞ, HÜSEYİN, ŞENOĞLU, NİMET, DİNÇER, METİN, KAHVECİ, KADRİYE, DURU BÜLBÜL, SELMA, DAĞLI, EMİNE, KARA, ATİLLA, KARA, İSKENDER, TURAN, SEMA, ÖZÇELİK, ZERRİN, SEYDAOĞLU, GÜLŞAH, SALTÜRK, CÜNEYT, EDİPOĞLU, ÖZLEM, ÖNALAN, TUĞBA, ÖZYILMAZ SARAÇ, EZGİ, YAZICIOĞLU MOÇİN, ÖZLEM, AKAN, BELGİN, CİNEL, İSMAİL HAKKI, GÖKMEN, ALİ NECATİ, HANCI, VOLKAN, İKİDAĞ, BELGİN, MANDAL, TUĞBA, YAĞMURKAYA, ÖZNUR, NALBANT, AHMET, CİNEMRE, HAKAN, ÖZTUNA, FUNDA, and AYAYDIN MÜRTEZAOĞLU, EMİNE SEVİL

Published
2017

28. PREVALENCE AND CLINICAL FEATURES OF CHRONIC CRITICAL ILLNESS IN THE ELDERLY POPULATION IN TURKEY.

Author

DEMİRKIRAN, Hilmi, UZUNOGLU, Emine, ERDİVANLI, Başar, KARADAMAR, Ulaş, KOÇ, Suna, TOMAK, Yakup, ÖZMEN, Mustafa, ALMALI, Necat, ÇAĞAÇ, Aydın, ÇÖMEZ, Mehmet Selim, TUNCER, Mustafa, TOKUR, Murat Emre, BAYRAKCI, Sinem, BİNİCİ, Orhan, BAHADIR, Turkan, TEKELİ, Arzu Esen, BAHAR, İlhan, KARAKAŞ, Buğra, KESKİN, Sıddık, and ÖKSÜZ, Hafize

Subjects
CRITICALLY ill, CHRONIC diseases, INTENSIVE care patients, LENGTH of stay in hospitals, OLDER people
Abstract

Objectives: The definition of chronic critical illness in the elderly has not yet been determined. The aim of the study is to determine the prevalence and clinical features of chronic critical illness in the elderly population in Turkey. Materials and Methods: Data from 16 intensive care units of public and private hospitals in Turkey were evaluated. Patients staying in the intensive care units for at least eight days between 2015 and 2017 and having at least one of the additional criteria were accepted as chronic critical illness and they were divided into two groups by age, those 65 and older and those under 65. Results: The chronic critical illness patient rate in the intensive care units was 10.7%. Of chronic critical illness patients in the intensive care units, 60.9% were 65 years of age and older, and the mortality rate of patients 65 years and older was 70%. The frequencies of ischemic stroke and sepsis, the number of patients with comorbidities, and the mortality rate were higher in patients over 65 years of age, while the frequency of traumatic brain injury, presence of a major wound, tracheostomy, length of hospital stay and cost of care were higher in patients under 65 years of age. Conclusion: We determined that prolonged mechanical ventilation, traumatic brain injury, tracheostomy and major wound presence in intensive care units patients 65 years and older increased hospital stay and costs. More work is needed to define chronic critical illness more clearly in elderly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. The Evaluation of the Multicenter Intensive Care Quality Standards in Turkey.

Author

Bahar, İlhan

Subjects
*CRITICAL care medicine, *INTENSIVE care units, *INFECTION control, *QUALITY standards, *PHYSICAL therapy
Abstract

The intensive care beds are limited in number and costly. The problem might be solved by using these beds more efficiently. We were the first in conducting intensive care-related quality research in our country. Our study was a survey study. We screened a total of 134 tertiary level intensive car e units. Specialists working in intensive care units of 134 hospitals, of which 54 were university hospitals, were interviewed. The ratio of hospitals without any negative-pressure chamber was 55.6%. No medical technical manager was present in intensive care units. No physical therapy coordinator was determined to be present in intensive care units, presenting only when a consultation was requested. No joint meeting with a multi -professional team was being held. We also determined that no joint meeting was being held with the infection control committee regarding handwashing either. Additionally, we discovered that the growing microorganisms and their antibiotic sensitivities were not being evaluated together with the infection control committee. We determined that inadequacies were present regarding the infrastructure, procedures, and outcomes related to quality assessment in Turkey, which is a developing country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. Patient profile at intensive care units in Turkey: 922 patients multicenter prevalence study

Author

Yazicioglu Mocin, Özlem, primary, Ozyilmaz, Ezgi, additional, Onalan, TuğBa, additional, Edipoglu, Ozlem, additional, Salturk, Cuneyt, additional, SeydaoğLu, Gulsah, additional, Arikan, Huseyin, additional, Ozcelik, Zerrin, additional, Turan, Sema, additional, Kara, Iskender, additional, Kara, Atilla, additional, Daglı, Emine, additional, Bulbul, Selma Duru, additional, Kahveci, Kadriye, additional, DinçEr, Metin, additional, Senoglu, Nimet, additional, Ozkarakas, Huseyin, additional, Bahar, İLhan, additional, Cengiz, Melike, additional, Ramazanoglu, Atilla, additional, Celik, Burcu, additional, Gaygısız, Ummugulsun, additional, Kir, Gulay, additional, Bindal, Ahmet, additional, Akan, Belgin, additional, Ozkocak Turan, Isil, additional, Yildirim, Fatma, additional, Başarık, Burcu, additional, Arslan Ulukan, Zeliha, additional, Efe, Serdar, additional, Sungur, Murat, additional, Temel, Sahin, additional, Izdes, Seval, additional, Hosgun, Derya, additional, Karadeniz, Nurhan, additional, Tuncay, Eylem, additional, Goksenoglu, Nezihe, additional, Irmak, Ilim, additional, Datli, Utku, additional, Zerman, Avsar, additional, Akdag, Devrim, additional, Ozdemir, Levent, additional, Elay, Gulseren, additional, Karacayir, Yucel, additional, Topeli, Arzu, additional, Hancı, Pervin, additional, Kaya, Esat Kivanc, additional, Guven, Pinar, additional, Sazak, Hilal, additional, Aydemir, Semih, additional, Aygencel, Gulbin, additional, Aydemir, Yusuf, additional, Doganay, Zahide, additional, Komurcu, Ozgur, additional, Hanci, Volkan, additional, Karakoc, Emre, additional, Sozutek, Didem, additional, Coskun, Guven, additional, Ates, Gungor, additional, Tiryaki, Civan, additional, Soyturk, AyşE Nur, additional, Kelebek Girgin, Nermin, additional, Caliskan, Gulbahar, additional, Biyikli, Oben, additional, Gokmen, Necati, additional, Koca, Ugur, additional, Ciledag, Aydin, additional, Ozmen Suner, Kezban, additional, Ciner, İSmail, additional, Arslantas, Mustafa Kemal, additional, Gül, Fethi, additional, Ataman, Sena, additional, Kirakli, Cenk, additional, Tuksavul, Fevziye, additional, Ergun, Recai, additional, Yilmaz, Nafiye, additional, Altintas, Defne, additional, Talan, Leyla, additional, Yalcinsoy, Murat, additional, Gullu, Mehmet Nezir, additional, Ergin Ozcan, Perihan, additional, Orhun, Gunseli, additional, Savran, Yusuf, additional, Okur, Murat Emre, additional, Akpinar, Sedar, additional, Sen, Pelin, additional, Gursel, Gul, additional, Serifoglu, Irem, additional, Gedik, Ender, additional, Balbay, Oner Abidin, additional, Akbas, Turkay, additional, Cesur, Sinem, additional, YolaçAn, HüLya, additional, Sagmen, Seda Beyhan, additional, Korkmaz Ekren, Pervin, additional, BacakoğLu, Feza, additional, Ergan, Begum, additional, Gunay, Ersin, additional, Sanaydin, Muzaffer, additional, Saglam, Dursun Ali, additional, Karakurt, Sait, additional, Eryuksel, Emel, additional, çElikel, Turgay, additional, Oztuna, Funda, additional, Ayaydin Murtezaoglu, Emine Sevil, additional, Cinemre, Hakan, additional, Nalbant, Ahmet, additional, Yagmurkaya, Oznur, additional, Mandal, Tugba, additional, and İKidag, Belgin, additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Spontan Tepe Akım Hızları Weaning Belirteci Midir?

Author

Bahar, İlhan, Baldane, Süleyman, Elay, Gülseren, Coşkun, Ramazan, Gündoğan, Kürşat, Güven, Muhammet, Sungur, Murat, and Selçuk Üniversitesi

Subjects
Cerrahi
Abstract

Amaç: Mekanik ventilatörden ayırmada kullanılan birçok parametre mevcuttur. Ancak bu parametrelerin sonucu tahmin etme başarısı sınırlıdır. Bu çalışmadaki amacımız spontan solunum denemeleri (SBT) sırasında, spontan ekspiratuar (SPEF) ve spontan inspiratuar (SPİF) tepe akım hızlarının weaning başarısını tahminde etkisini ölçmekti.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya, Mart 2011 ile Mayıs 2012 yılları arasında Erciyes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Genel Cerrahi ve Dahili Yoğun bakımlarında en az 24 saat mekanik ventilatör (MV) tedavisi alan hastalar alındı. Spontan soluyan hastalar 30 dakika boyunca T parçası aracığıyla spontan solunum çalışması (SBT)'na alındı ve SPIF ve SPEF değerleri ölçüldü. Hastalar 30 dakika boyunca SBT'yi tolere ettiyse ekstübe edildiler. Hastalar ekstübasyondan sonra 48 saat içinde tekrar entübe olmaları durumunda başarısız weaning olarak değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Çalışma 36 hasta ile tamamlandı, 11 hasta başarısız oldu, 25 hasta başarılı oldu. Her iki grupta da eğri altında kalan alan (AUC),SBT sırasında ölçülen dakikalık SPEF ve SPEF değerleri dakikalık ROC analizi ile hesaplandı. Maksimum AUC değeri 23. dakikada SPIF için (0,564; %95 CI: 0,363-0,764) ve 9. dakika SPEF değeri . SPIF için 23. dakikada kesim değeri 26,7 litre/dakika, hesaplanan sensitivite ve spesifite değerleri sırasıyla %72 ve %42 olarak bulundu. SPEF için 9. dakika kesim değeri 24,7 litre/dakika, sırasıyla sensitivite ve spesifite değerleri %63,6 ve %48 olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Biz çalışmamızda geleneksel weaning prediktörleriyle karşılaştırdığımızda ,dakikalık SPIF ölçümlerinin en iyi spesifiteye, dakikalık SPEF ölçümlerinin de en iyi sensitiviteye sahip olduğunu belirledik Bu konuda daha geniş çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır., Objective: Numerous parameters have been suggested for the prediction of weaning from mechanical ventilation; however, these parameters have limited success in the prediction of weaning outcome. This study aims to assess the success of peak flow rates [spontaneous peak inspiratory flow rate (SPIF) and spontaneous peak expiratory flow rate (SPEF)] that were measured during a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) for the prediction of weaning outcome. Material and Methods: Patients who were managed and who received mechanical ventilation support for at least 24 h in the Internal Medicine and General Surgery Intensive Care Units of Erciyes University, School of Medicine between March, 2011 and May, 2012 were included in this study. Over 30 min, SPIF and SPEF values were measured during SBT in patients who were spontaneously breathing through a T-tube. Patients who tolerated the 30-min SBT were extubated. Patients who did not require reintubation for 48 h after extubation were considered as successful weaning, whereas those who required re-intubation were considered as weaning failure. Results: The study was completed with a total of 36 patients with 11 patients in the failure group and 25 in the success group. In both the groups, the area under curve (AUC) was calculated for each minute via ROC analysis using minute SPIF and SPEF values that were measured during SBT. The maximum AUC was calculated at 23 min for SPIF (0.564; 95% CI: 0.363-0.764) and at 9 min for SPEF (0.542; 95% CI: 0.316-0.3769). When the cut-off value for SPIF was accepted as >26.7 l/min at 23 min, sensitivity and specificity were calculated as 72.0% and 48.0%, respectively. When the cut-off value for SPEF was accepted as >24.7 l/min at 9 min, sensitivity and specificity were calculated as 63.6% and 48.0%, respectively. Conclusion: We believe that minute SPIF measurement, which has better sensitivity, and minute SPEF measurement, which has better specificity, compared with the available traditional predictors may be used as potential bedside weaning predictors when evaluated in comprehensive studies.

Published
2015

35. Our Five Years' Experience on the Patients with Brain Death Diagnosis: Two Centered Retrospective Study.

Author

Andic, Okan, Demirkiran, Hilmi, Bahar, Ilhan, Tekeli, Arzu Esen, and Gulhas, Nurcin

Subjects
BRAIN death, MAGNETIC resonance angiography, INTENSIVE care units, COMPUTED tomography, COMPUTER files
Abstract

Brain death (BD) diagnosis is a clinical diagnosis, but in many countries, other confirmatory tests are obligatory. The study was aimed to investigate the clinical effects of the current process of BD in Turkey. This study was performed retrospectively by evaluating BD-diagnosed patients' files and computer records in the Van Yuzuncu Yil University Hospital's Anesthesiology Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and in a Private Istanbul Hospital's general ICU. This study was conducted between 2012 and 2017 in Turkey. Of the 57 patients included in the study, 63.2% were male (n = 36), and 36.8% were female (n = 21). The most common causes of hospital admissions were cerebral hemorrhage (38.6%; n = 22) and trauma (36.8%; n = 21). Of the patients who accepted organ transplantation, 80% (n = 4) were diagnosed at an average of 60 hours (min 24, max 120). The rates of using imaging methods in the clinical diagnosis of BD were as follows: 75.4% (n = 43) for Computerized Tomography Angiography (CTA), 17.6% (n = 10) for Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA), and 7% (n = 4) for Transcranial Doppler (TD) Ultrasonography. Of the patients, 8.78% (n = 5) were used as donors. Studies in the literature have indicated that the short duration of BD diagnosis will lead to an increase in organ donation acceptance rates. This study found that the diagnosis time was longer than presented in the literature and that CTA was the most commonly used imaging modality in addition to the apnea test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

36. Is Hyaluran A Biomarker In Patients Without Sepsis-Related Liver Injury?

Author

Bahar, İlhan, Elay, Gülseren, and Bayram, Adnan

Subjects
*SEPTIC shock, *LIVER injuries, *INTENSIVE care units, *C-reactive protein, *DEMOGRAPHIC characteristics
Abstract

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the value of hyaluronan (HA) as a biomarker of sepsis in patients not showing sepsis-associated liver dysfunction and to investigate the relationship between HA level and disease severity. Sepsis patients that had been followed-up between 2015 and 2016 in intensive care units (ICU) of Erciyes University Hospital were included in this prospective study. Sepsis was defined according to the 2013 Sepsis Survival Campaign Guidelines. The patients were classified as sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. Blood samples were collected from the patients on the first and the third days to measure the HA level. The demographic characteristics, the duration of intensive care unit stay, and mortality data of the patient and the control groups were analyzed. A total of 46 patients and 30 control subjects were evaluated. HA levels were found to be higher in the sepsis group than the others. HA was neither a predictor of the disease mortality, nor was it correlated with the inflammatory markers, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT). HA is not a sepsis biomarker in the patients with sepsis who do not show sepsis-associated liver dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Supraklavikular yaklaşımla uygulanan üst ekstremite bloklarının retrospektif olarak incelenmesi

Author

Bahar, İlhan, Karaman, Haktan, Dicle Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı, Bahar, İlhan, and Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyon Anabilim Dalı

Subjects
Local anesthesia, Anestezi, Bupivacaine, Anesthetics-local, Levobupivakain, Periferik sinirler, Anestezi ve Reanimasyon, Bupivakain, Anesthesia, Anesthesia-conduction, Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Brachial plexus, Peripheral nerves, Levobupivacaine, Lokal anestezi
Abstract

Çalışmamızda retrospektif olarak 2009 haziran - 2010 haziran arasında acil ya da elektif, tek taraflı el, ön kol veya kol cerrahisi uygulanacak ASA I-II grubu, 18-65 yaş arası 50 olgu çalışmaya dahil edildi.Çalışmaya alınan olgular rasgele 25 kişilik 2 gruba ayrıldı. Grup B'ye (bupivakain grubu) 40ml (% 0,5; 5mg/ml) bupivakain, Grup L'ye (levobupivakain grubu) 40 ml (% 0,5; 5mg/ml) levobupivakain uygulandı.Hastalar supin pozisyonunda olacak şekilde yatırıldı ve baş blok yerinin aksi yönüne çevrildi. Periferik blok uygulanacak ekstremitenin klavikulasının orta noktasının hemen üst kısmı, subklavyen arter, eksternal juguler ven ve sternokleidomastoid kasın lateral başının dış kısmı belirlenerek blok noktası saptandı. Blok yapılacak kolun deltoid kasının üzerine bir adet EKG elektrodu yapıştırıldı.Blok uygulanacak bölgenin cilt temizliği povidon iyot ile yapılmış, 1-2 ml %2'lik lidokain (adrenalinli) ile lokal anestezi uygulandı. Sinir stimülatörü başlangıçta 1.0 mA, 2Hz, 0.1 ms parametrelere ayarlandı. İşaretlenen girişim noktasından, lokal anestezi yapıldı yerden stimülatör iğnesi kaudale, hafif mediale ve hafif sırta doğru yavaş yavaş ilerletildi. Sinirlere ait uygun kas hareketleri gözlendiğinde ilaçlar (bupivakain ve levobupivakain) 10 ya da 15'er ml, her 5 ml'de bir aspire edilerek sinirlere eşit oranda verildi.Uygulama yapıldıktan 5 dakika sonra ameliyat bölgesi 5 dakikalık aralıklarla `pin¬prick` testi ile kontrol edilmeye başlandı. Anestezinin yerleşme süresi `pin-prick` ve dokunma testi ile, motor blok kalitesi ise modifiye Bromage skalası ile değerlendirilerek kaydedildi.Motor blok başlama zamanı; lokal anestezik enjeksiyonundan motor blok (omuz kaldıramama) oluşmasına kadar geçen süre, sensoryel blok başlama zamanı ise lokal anestezik enjeksiyonundan girişim bölgesinde `pin-prick` testinde ağrı duyusu kayboluncaya kadar geçen süre olarak kaydedildi. `Pin-prick` testi ameliyat bölgesinde pozitifleşince ameliyata izin verildi.Hastalarda duysal blok süresi, duysal blok başlangıcından ağrı duyusu başlayıncaya kadar olan süre olarak kaydedildi. Motor blok süresi ise, motor blok başlangıcından kolun tamamen hareket kabiliyetini tekrar kazanmasına kadar geçen süre olarak kaydedildi. Bu süreler hastaların verdiği bilgilere göre 4., 8. ve 24. saatlerde yapılan ziyaretlerde tespit edildi.Ayrıca ameliyat sırasında oluşan ağrı ya da stres durumlarında ek analjezik ilaç yapıldı. Bu amaçla fentanil verildi, verilen toplam dozlar kaydedildi.Hastaların blok sırasında ve sonrasındaki tüm şikayetleri, bloğa bağlı komplikasyonlar ve kullanılan ilaçlara bağlı yan etkiler her hasta için ayrı ayrı kaydedildi.Olguların postoperatif ağrı şikayeti `verbal rating skala (VRS)` ile, hasta memnuniyeti ise `memnun değil, az memnun ve memnun` olarak postoperatif 24.saatinde değerlendirildi. VRS 2 olunca ilk analjezik ( contromal iv ) verildi, servis doktorlarının kişisel kararı ile hastanın şikayeti sonrasında verildi. Hastalar servislerinde 4.-8. saatlerinde ve 24.saatinde ziyaret edilerek blok geri dönme süreleri, ağrı şikayetleri ve aldıkları total analjezik miktarları kaydedildi.Tamamlayıcı istatistiklerin, sıklık tablolarının, grup içi ve gruplar arası farklılıkların sınanmasında SPSS 15 istatistik paket programı kullanılacak. Yaş, boy, kg, yeterli duysal bloğa erişim süresi, total motor blok gelişim süresi, motor blok süresi, postoperatif ilk analjezik gereksinim zamanı, postoperatif 24 saatlik analjezik tüketim miktarı, intraop ek analjezik gereksinim süresi, cerrahi konfor, hasta memnuniyeti gruplar arası karşılaştırmalarda ortalamaları ve oranları test eden Student's t testi kullanıldı. Kategorik değişkenler için Khi-Kare testi veya Fisher's exact testi kullanılacak. P ? 0.05 olduğunda farklılık istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edilecekÇalışmamızda; demografik özellikler (yaş, kilo, boy, cinsiyet), ASA değerleri, ameliyat bölgeleri, intraop opioid ihtiyacı ve postoperatif memnuniyet açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı.Duysal ve motor blok başlama sürelerine bakıldığında, bupivakain grubunun levobupivakain grubuna göre anlamlı olarak daha kısa sürede blok oluşturduğunu bulduk. Total duysal ve motor blok süreleri ise, her iki grupta da benzer olarak değerlendirildi.Postoperatif VRS değerlerinde ise bupivakain grubu levobupivakain grubuna göre daha iyi değerlere sahipti. Her iki grupta postoperatif ilk analjezik alma süresi ve analjezik alan hasta sayıları arasında anlamlı farklılık yoktu.Grup B'de Grup L'ye göre komplikasyonların belirgin olarak fazla olduğu gözlendi. Grup B'de 4 olguda komplikasyon gözlenirken, Grup L'de komplikasyon 3hastada gözlendi. Grup B'de 2 hastada Horner sendromu (pitosis, myosis), 2 hastada uzamış blokaj (24 saatten fazla) oldu... Grup L'de ise 2 hastada horner sendromu ve 1 hastada uzamış blokaj gözlendi.Komplikasyon gelişen hastalarda takiplerinde hiçbir kalıcı nörolojik bozukluğa rastlanmadı.Genel olarak baktığımızda, çalışmamızda duysal ve motor blok sürelerinin, ayrıca da postoperatif analjezi süresinin her iki grupta da yeterli olduğunu saptadık.Sonuç olarak; brakiyal pleksus bloğu için kullanılan levobupivakain ve bupivakainin motor ve sensoryal blok sağlamada %0,5'lik konsantrasyonunun yeterli olduğunu düşünüyoruz. Bupivakainin nörotoksik yan etkileri (Horner sendromu, uzamış blokaj v.b) levobupivakaine göre daha belirgindi. Ayrıca bupivakainin potansiyel kardiyotoksik yan etkileri göz önüne alındığında levobupivakainin daha güvenli olduğu kanaatine vardık. A retrospective study between 2009 June and 2010 June, emergency or elective, one-sided hand, forearm or arm surgery to be applied in ASA I-II group, 50 patients were enrolled between the ages of 18-65.The study subjects were divided randomly into 2 groups of 25 persons. Group B (bupivacaine group), 40ml (0.5%; 5mg/ml), bupivacaine, Group L (levobupivacaine group) 40 ml (0.5%; 5mg/ml) levobupivacaine was performed.Patients to be admitted to the supine position and head turned away from the location of the block. Immediately applied to the upper part of the center point of klavikulasının extremity peripheral block, subclavian artery, external jugular vein and sternocleidomastoid muscle to the outer part of the lateral head was found by determining the block point. The deltoid muscle in the arm on the block will be pasted in a two ECG electrodes.Skin cleansing with povidone iodine in the region has been applied to the block, 1-2 mL of 2% lidocaine (epinephrine) was performed with local anesthesia. The nerve stimulator initially 1.0 mA, 2 Hz, 0.1 ms, set the parameters. Initiative from the marked, from the stimulator needle was performed under local anesthesia caudal, medial and slightly back slightly slowly advanced to the right. Appropriate muscle movements of the nerves was observed, medications (bupivacaine and levobupivacaine) 10 or 15 each ml, 5 ml each were given an equal proportion to the nerves were aspirated.Application has been made a 5-minute intervals of 5 minutes, then the operation zone `¬ pin prick test was to be controlled.Anaesthesia settlement period `pin-prick` and the touch test and the modified Bromage scale motor block quality were evaluated.Motor block onset time, local anesthetic injection of the engine block (shoulder kaldıramama) the formation period, the local anesthetic injection, sensory block onset time of intervention in `pin-prick test were recorded as the time off until the pain sensation. `Pin-prick` test pozitifleşince surgery was allowed in the surgery.Patients with duration of sensory block, onset of sensory block was recorded as the time until the pain sensation. The duration of the engine block, engine block completely the beginning of the movement of the arm were recorded as the time to win again.According to these periods, patients 4, 8 and 24 hours visits were made.Also during the operation of additional analgesic medication was performed in cases of pain or stress. Fentanyl was given for this purpose, the total doses given were recorded.All the complaints of the patients during and after the block, the block-related complications and side effects of drugs used were recorded for each patient individually.The postoperative pain `verbal rating scale (VRS), with patient satisfaction is` not satisfied, less happy and satisfied `were evaluated as a postoperative 24.saatinde. VRS 2 when the first analgesic (contromal iv) was given to the service after complaints of doctors and the patient was given a personal decision. Patients wards 4-8. 24.saatinde were visited during the block and return periods, pain complaints and their total recorded in all patients.Supplementary statistics, frequency tables, intra-group and intergroup differences sınanmasında SPSS 15 statistical software package used. Age, height, kg, adequate sensory block access time, total development time of the engine block, motor block, duration, time to first analgesic requirement, postoperative 24-hour analgesic consumption, duration of need for intraoperative additional analgesia, surgical comfort, patient satisfaction comparisons between the groups in mean Student's t test was used to test and rate. Chi-square test for categorical variables or Fisher's exact test was used. P ? 0.05 considered statistically significant difference will be whenIn our study, demographic characteristics (age, weight, height, sex), ASA values, areas of operation, intraoperative and postoperative opioid requirements were no significant differences between groups in terms of satisfaction.When sensory and motor block onset times, bupivacaine, levobupivacaine group was significantly less than the block formed by the group found. Total duration of sensory and motor block, were similar in both groups.Postoperative values of VRS in the bupivacaine group had values greater than in the levobupivacaine group. In both groups, postoperative time to first pain and analgesics did not differ significantly between the number of patients.Complications in Group L than in group B were significantly greater. Complications occurred in 4 patients in Group B, Group L also 3hastada complications were observed. Horner's syndrome in 2 patients in group B (pitosis, myosis), 2 had prolonged blockade (24 hours) was ... Horner's syndrome in 2 patients in Group L, and 1 patient had prolonged blockade.There were no permanent neurological impairment in patients who developed complications in the follow up.In general, our study, the duration of sensory and motor block, but also adequate in both groups found that the duration of postoperative analgesia.In conclusion, levobupivacaine and bupivacaine in brachial plexus block is used for providing the motor and sensory block of 0.5% believe that the concentration is sufficient. Neurotoxic side effects of bupivacaine (Horner's syndrome, prolonged blockade, etc.) than levobupivacaine was evident. In addition, the potential cardiotoxic side effects of bupivacaine Given concluded that levobupivacaine is more secure. 66

Published
2010

47. Effects of anesthesia on patients undergoing surgery for obstructive sleep apnea

Author

Yıldırım, Yavuz Selim, Apuhan, Tayfun, Ersözlü, Tolga, Bahar, İlhan, BAİBÜ, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, and Apuhan, Tayfun

Subjects
Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Apnea, Postoperative Management, Anesthesia, Analgesia, Upper Airway Obstruction, respiratory tract diseases
Abstract

Anesthesia and sleep both predispose to upper airway obstruction induced reductions in pharyngeal dilator muscle activation. Symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea are common in patients presenting for surgery and are associated with increased morbidity. Analgesia contributes significantly to postoperative respiratory depression and obstruction. Screening for sleep apnea should be done for all surgical patients. Every patient diagnosed with OSA, or with clinical suspicion of OSA, should be considered to have a difficult airway, and consequently has increased risk of anesthesia. The possible problems may arise during tracheal intubation, extubation, or with postoperative analgesia, since opioids increase the incidence of pharyngeal collapse. Patients with known or suspected obstructive sleep apnea need careful postoperative management. Postoperative monitoring for apnea, desaturation, and dysrhythmias is a necessity in sleep apnea patients. © 2011 Yildirim YS, et al.

Published
2011

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results