IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v10y2001i1p29-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Comfort and Local Complications After Cardiac Catheterization

Author

Listed:
  • Shiow-Lan Wang
  • Nancy S. Redeker
  • Abel E. Moreyra
  • Marie R. Diamond

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 4 hours of bed rest versus 6 hours of bed rest on patients' safety, comfort, and satisfaction levels. Using a quasi-experimental design, the authors studied 118 left-heart catheterization patients who were randomly assigned to 4 hours or 6 hours of bed rest. Among the study participants, only 1 in the 6-hour group had significant bleeding. There were no complications in the 4-hour group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on any of the other study variables. Given the lack of significant complications for the 4-hour group and similar comfort levels for both study groups, these findings suggest the feasibility of reducing the standard period of postcatheterization bed rest from 6 hours to 4 hours, thereby possibly lowering the cost of the outpatient procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiow-Lan Wang & Nancy S. Redeker & Abel E. Moreyra & Marie R. Diamond, 2001. "Comparison of Comfort and Local Complications After Cardiac Catheterization," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 10(1), pages 29-39, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:10:y:2001:i:1:p:29-39
    DOI: 10.1177/c10n1r4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/c10n1r4
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/c10n1r4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:10:y:2001:i:1:p:29-39. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.