Posted on 03/08/2005 8:09:24 AM PST by Howlin
Removing fluid from chest!
I believe this is a fairly minor complication to his surgery. If I understand the problem, the patient developed adhesions from the parietal pleura (covering over the lungs) to the chest wall, or pericardia and developed scar tissue which walled of a loculation of fluid in that loculation. I suspect his doctors put a needle in under CT direction and did a pleurocentesis (pulled the fluid off). It probably reformed and Clintons physicians feel it will be a recurrent problem restricting the excursion of the lung in that area, thus compromising gas exchange. If he were to develope a pneumonia in 6 months, he would already have a ventilatory compromise. So they have recommended he undergo elective decortication and pleuredsis, so the "pocket" will be eliminated and fluid will not be sequestered in that trouble spot. In Clinton's case, he is not septic and therefore I do not believe this represents an infectuous process, but rather an effusion of pleural fluid which cannot, under normal physiological processes, be absorbed because of the small area of fluid accummulation. If it were infected, it would be a more acute situation and need to be treated with IV antibiotics while he gets his clotting factors back to normal ( no doubt he is on Coumadin or similar drug)
That's exactly what I was gonna say.
Easy, Muffy -- I'm a believer.
Now take a deeeep breath....
It looks like full blown AIDS to me.
To tell the truth, you remind me of a high school jock who thinks he's cool, but is really a complete jerk.
I have no idea what you're like in real life, but you come across as really lame online.
In any case, my only point on this thread is that even the debauched one can be redeemed if he is truly repentant. It has nothing to do with wanting evil to flourish, and your attempting to make that connection is a giant failure in logic.
Peace, Lib.
That's quite a coincidence.
Here's my post waay back:
" But you and others are still missing the gist of Christ's commandment to "pray" for your enemy...He meant that we ought to pray that our enemy would, could, should "SEE-THE-LIGHT." To be repentant. To be redempted....
So then, (back to my original question which you never answered because you were trying.....and failing....to be cute), why did you manufacture this accusation?
No one on this thread said they were praying that "Evil thrive."
Where did you get this preposterous 'opinion'?
(And leave out the gnat stuff. It was stupid enough the first time).
Oh...... one more question. Are you praying that Clinton dies?
"It looks like full blown AIDS to me."
Tell it like it is.
"removed the equivalent of several liter bottles of fluid from around his heart."
That's not CHF. That's pericardial effusion.
" and therefore I do not believe this represents an infectuous process, but rather an effusion of pleural fluid which cannot, under normal physiological processes, be absorbed because of the small area of fluid accummulation."
"Infectious", not "infectuous".
"Pleural effusion", not "effusion of pleural fluid".
"pericardium" not "pericardia"
The patient's pericardium would have been resected in the OR during bypass. The pericardium is incised during surgery and can not be repaired; it is removed. A standard bypass patient such as Mr. Clinton no longer has a pericardium, post-op.
"Pleuracentesis" not "pleurocentesis."
The usual term used for a procedure of this sort is is "thoracentesis" or "thoracocentesis" not "pleuracentesis". Pleuracentesis would be a procedure to remove fluid from between the pleuras, not in the chest cavity.
"Pleurodesis", not "pleuredesis".
Have you read a report that he is to undergo pleurodesis? The reports I have read ( and I note that medical reports on the web and/or given by television reporters are notorious for being full of factual error - they don't seem to have a clue) say the pocket of fluid is in the left chest cavity, not in the lung and not between the pleuras.
Pleurodesis is indicated when there is a recurrent fluid accumulation between the pleuras, not in the chest cavity. It is in his left chest cavity, which means it is outside of his lung, according to this report:
"WASHINGTON Former President Bill Clinton will undergo surgery on Thursday to remove fluid and scar tissue from his left chest cavity, some six months after he had a quadruple bypass operation, Clinton and his doctors said on Tuesday."
This is a loculation, an adhesion that has a small effusion inside. The adhesion will be resected and the fluid will be drained.
That would be called: thoracotomy ( incision into the chest) with decortication ( removal of a small part of the covering of the lung) and possibly thoracentesis ( draining fluid out of the chest cavity).
If you want to play a doctor on the Internet, at least get your anatomy and terminology straight
"That's not CHF. That's pericardial effusion."
A patient with pericardial effusion from mets would likely develop CHF as a consequence of the effusion. The effusion would affect stroke volume and therefore CO; such a patient could easily develop CHF as well as pulmonary edema under such conditions. I bet he had both.
I hope the patient did not suffer too much, although I suspect he was a very sick man.
No. Severe pericardial effusion would cause tamponade, not CHF.
My b-i-l had heart valve replacement last fall and had to go back to have fluid removed from his lungs. He was back at work a few days later. No big deal.
I agree with your assessment. It was hard to figure this out from the early reports. I couldn't tell initially if he had a pleural effusion or a pericardial effusion.
Shoot...Now I'm really confused. Where did you read a coherent report?
since you are so obviously intent on having the last word here, you've got it.
hahahahaaha I agree... most certainly a "Im right you're wrong" one too
save
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.