miR-223-3p在乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者中的表达及其与预后的关系

目的探讨miR-223-3p在乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭(HBV-ACLF)患者血浆中的表达及其与预后的关系。方法采用实时荧光定量PCR(RT-qPCR)法检测50例HBV-ACLF、50例慢性乙型肝炎(chronic hepatitis B,CHB)患者和30名正常对照者的血浆miR-223-3p相对表达量,分析血浆miR-223-3p表达量与丙氨酸转氨酶(ALT)、总胆红素(TBil)、凝血酶原活动度(PTA)、MELD评分的相关性,采用方差分析或t检验和Pearson相关性分析。结果 HBV-ACLF组与CHB组、HC组比较,血浆中miR-223-3p表达量均显著升高(t=11.935、17.053,P均0.001);miR-223-3p的表达量与HBV-ACLF患者的ALT、TBil、MELD评分呈正相关(r=0.610、0.808、0.702,P均0.001),与PTA水平呈负相关(r=-0.846,P0.001)。多因素Cox模型分析结果显示,与HBV-ACLF患者死亡相关的影响因素依次为血浆miR-223-3p表达量(P=0.023)、PTA(P=0.044)和MELD评分(P=0.049)。结论血浆miR-223-3p在HBV-ACLF患者中表达水平升高与HBV-ACLF发生及预后密切相关,在HBV-ACLF诊断和预后评价中具有应用价值。     

恩替卡韦治疗46例HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭临床分析

目的探讨影响HBV-ACLF病情转归的危险因素及恩替卡韦治疗HBV-ACLF的效果。方法在基础治疗前提下加用恩替卡韦治疗46例HBV-ACLF患者,观察并比较患者生物化学指标、HBV DNA载量、并发症、MELD评分、有无肝硬化基础及患者1、3、6、12和24个月内生存情况,分析影响患者病情转归的危险因素。结果治疗1个月患者病死率为15.2%,PTA是影响转归的危险因素,生存组PTA为34.4±4.7,死亡组PTA为24.2±10.9,差异有统计学意义(P=0.049);治疗3个月患者病死率增加为21.7%,PTA和MELD评分是影响转归的危险因素。生存组PTA为35.0±4.2,死亡组PTA为25.1±9.2,差异有统计学意义(P=0.008);生存组MELD评分为22.2±3.5,死亡组MELD评分为29.1±7.7,差异有统计学意义(P=0.021);治疗6个月至24个月患者病死率增加为28.3%;MELD评分是影响转归的危险因素,生存组MELD评分为22.2±3.6,死亡组MELD评分为27.7±7.2,两组差异有统计学意义(P=0.019)。结论在基础治疗前提下加用恩替卡韦治疗HBV-ACLF,治疗3个月内患者病情转归的判断主要依赖PTA的结果;而治疗3个月后MELD评分对病情转归的判断更为可靠。     

MELD评分联合中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值对HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭短期预后的预测价值

目的探讨MELD评分系统结合中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值(NLR)对预测HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭(HBV-ACLF)短期预后的价值。方法回顾性分析2014年6月-2016年12月西南医科大学附属医院收治的133例HBV-ACLF患者,根据3个月的预后情况分为死亡组(n=72)和存活组(n=61)。在入院24 h内测定患者NLR和肝肾功能、凝血指标,并进行MELD评分。计量资料2组间比较采用t检验,多因素二分类logistic回归分析各相关因素与HBV-ACLF患者疾病转归的关系。绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)分析MELD评分联合NLR的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)以评价二者结合对HBV-ACLF患者短期预后的预测价值。结果死亡组年龄、TBil、血清肌酐(Cr)、PT、国际标准化比值、MELD评分、NLR均大于存活组,PTA小于存活组,差异均有统计学意义(t值分别为-5.888、-2.064、-3.707、-3.517、-3.410、-5.908、-2.830、4.169,P值均<0.05)。年龄、Cr、MELD评分与NLR为预测HBV-ACLF患者预后的危险因素[比值比(OR)分别为1.110、1.092、1.305、1.289,P值均<0.05],PTA为预测HBV-ACLF患者预后的保护因素(OR=0.872,P<0.05)。MELD评分较NLR的AUC高,分别为0.777和0.680,PTA的AUC为0.304,NLR联合MELD评分的AUC为0.843,当PTA=35%,MELD评分为23.29分,NLR为2.06时,对应的Youden指数最大,分别是0.32、0.28和0.43。当MELD评分>23.29,且NLR>2.06时,死亡概率为92.6%。结论 MELD评分联合NLR对HBVACLF患者短期预后的预测具有更好的价值。     

HBV-ACLF短期死亡影响因素分析及预后模型的建立与比较研究

目的采用机器学习中的Bagging算法分析HBV-ACLF短期死亡影响因素,建立HBV-ACLF短期预后模型,比较其与MELD评分对患者短期预后评估的效能。方法收集2010年1月至2017年4月随访期满3个月的新疆医科大学第一附属医院131例HBV-ACLF患者的临床资料,依据患者3个月内的短期生存状况,将其分为生存组及死亡组。采用Bagging算法分析HBV-ACLF短期死亡影响因素,建立患者生存状况的分类模型,采用ROC曲线下面积比较Bagging模型与MELD评分的效能。结果 131例HBV-ACLF患者3个月内死亡61例,存活70例,死亡率46.6%。Bagging算法得出HBV-ACLF短期死亡影响因素顺序依次为:年龄、PTA、PT、白蛋白、血尿素,与MELD评分所采用指标(胆红素、国际标准化比值、肌酐、病因)有差异。ROC曲线下,Bagging算法AUC=0.9743、MELD评分AUC=0.6985。结论 Bagging模型对HBV-ACLF短期预后的评估效果较好,年龄、PTA、PT、白蛋白、血尿素是影响HBV-ACLF患者短期预后的主要危险因素。     

血清高迁移率族蛋白1在乙型肝炎病毒相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者中的特点及其临床意义

目的 探讨血清高迁移率族蛋白1 (HMGB1)在HBV相关的慢加急性肝衰竭(HBV-ACLF)患者中的特点及其临床意义.方法 对60例HBV-ACLF患者血清HMGB1水平进行检测分析,并与30例慢性乙型肝炎患者和24例健康查体者进行对照研究,分析其与患者肝功能生物化学指标的相关性,并分析其与患者预后的关系.两组间比较采用独立样本的t检验或非参数检验,多组间比较采用方差分析,相关性分析采用多元线性回归法.结果 HBV-ACLF患者血清HMGB1水平高于慢性乙型肝炎患者[(10.03±3.08) μg/L比对(7.47+2.06) μg/L,t=2.667,P＜0.01],晚期HBV-ACLF患者血清HMGB1水平高于早期患者[(11.68±1.93) μg/L比对(9.11±3.15)μ g/L,t=2.214,P＜0.01],HBV-ACLF患者血清HMGB1水平与AST水平呈正相关(r=0.655,P＜0.01).随访2个月,感染组患者的HMGB1水平高于非感染组[(11.85±2.21)μ g/L比对(9.83±2.75) μg/L,Z=4.027,P＜0.05],死亡组患者的HMGB1水平高于生存组[(11.03±2.31)μg/L比对(9.52±3.01)μg/L,t=2.428,P＜0.05].结论 HBV-ACLF患者血清HMGB1水平随病情进展呈进行性升高,并可部分预测HBV-ACLF患者的预后.     

动态MELD评分有助于预测HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭预后

目的探讨在判断HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭(HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure,HBV-ACLF)患者预后方面,终末期肝病模型(model for end-stage liver disease,MELD)评分的动态变化是否优于基线MELD评分。方法前瞻性收集2009—2011年在我国4家医院住院治疗的HBV-ACLF患者的临床资料,包括临床表现、实验室检查及转归等,研究MELD评分动态变化与转归的关系。结果①纳入的82例90 d病死率为37.80%。死亡组患者基线MELD评分为(25.50±4.77)分,与存活组[(23.72±4.68)分]相比,差异无统计学意义(P=0.101)。但是从入组第7天开始,死亡组MELD评分逐渐升高,存活组MELD评分逐渐下降,此后各时间点2组MELD评分相比差异均有统计学意义。②低危组(基线MELD评分≤23分者)从第14天开始,存活患者MELD评分显著低于死亡患者[(16.04±4.00)分vs(29.39±12.30)分,P<0.05],高危组(基线MELD评分>23分者)从第7天开始,存活患者MELD评分显著低于死亡患者[(22.38±4.91)分vs(28.92±6.76)分,P=0.001],并且随着时间推移,差距逐渐增加。结论判断HBV-ACLF的预后应在基线MELD评分基础上,注意其动态变化,这将有助于提高预测的准确性。     

冷沉淀治疗乙型肝炎肝衰竭的疗效观察

目的 回顾性分析冷沉淀治疗乙型肝炎肝衰竭的疗效.方法 将80例乙型肝炎肝衰竭患者根据病情分为早/中期和晚期肝衰竭组,再根据是否加用冷沉淀治疗,分为对照组和冷沉淀组.用治疗前后的凝血酶原活动度（PTA）、总胆红素（TBIL）、国际标准化比值（INR）、血肌酐（Cr）、终末期肝病模型（MELD）评分和离院时转归评估疗效.结果 治疗2周后,早/中期肝衰竭患者中,冷沉淀组PTA、INR及MELD评分均显著优于对照组（P＜0.05）,冷沉淀组PTA、INR、Cr及MELD评分较治疗前显著改善（P＜0.05）.晚期肝衰竭患者中,两组各项指标比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）,两组间转归比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.治疗无效的早/中期肝衰竭患者冷沉淀组较对照组住院天数明显延长（P＜0.05）.结论 输注冷沉淀短期内可有效改善早/中期肝衰竭患者的凝血功能,延缓病情恶化速度.     

外周血髓源性抑制细胞在HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者中表达的研究

目的：探讨外周血髓源性抑制细胞（myeloid-derived suppressor cells , MDSCs）在HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭（HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure, HBV-ACLF）患者疾病进程中的临床意义。方法入组45例HBV-ACLF患者、34例慢性乙型肝炎（chronic hepatitis B, CHB）患者和25例健康对照者（healthy controls, HC）,采用流式细胞仪检测外周血MDSCs频率。对HBV-ACLF患者进行为期3周的随访,根据临床疗效分为好转组和无效组,动态观察2组患者外周血MDSCs的频率变化。结果 HBV-ACLF组外周血MDSCs频率（1.53%±1.15%）高于CHB组（0.92%±0.46%）和HC组（0.91%±0.47%）（P均〈0.01）。 HBV-ACLF组外周血MDSCs频率分别与TBIL、CRE、国际标准化比值（international normalized ratio, INR）、终末期肝病模型（model for end-stage liver disease, MELD）分值和MELD-Na分值呈正相关（r=0.434,P=0.003;r=0.343,P=0.021;r=0.505, P=0.000;r=0.528,P=0.000;r=0.451,P=0.002）,其中与INR和TBIL成多元线性关系,回归模型为y=-0.781＋0.623×INR＋0.003× TBIL。3周内死亡的HBV-ACLF组患者基线外周血MDSCs频率（2.09%±1.51%）高于好转组（1.15%±0.56%）和无效组（1.17%±0.70%）（P〈0.05）。外周血MDSCs频率与患者整体预后存在较弱的等级相关（r=0.309,P=0.039）。随访显示好转组和无效组患者外周血MDSCs频率均无明显变化。结论 HBV-ACLF患者外周血MDSCs频率显著升高;其与预后存在相关性,外周血MDSCs频率过高的患者预后差。     

血清IL-8水平预测HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者短期预后的临床研究

目的探讨血清IL-8水平用于评价HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭(HBV related acute-on-chronic liver failure,HBVACLF)患者短期预后的临床价值。方法纳入2016年1月—2018年8月我院收住的HBV-ACLF患者110例,根据住院60 d内是否病死分为生存组(n=64)及病死组(n=46)。收集患者入院时临床资料并计算终末期肝病模型(model of endstage liver disease,MELD)评分,检测血清IL-8水平,使用ROC曲线分析血清IL-8水平用于评价患者短期预后的价值。结果病死组患者血清IL-8水平及MELD评分均显著高于生存组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。预测HBV-ACLF患者60 d病死情况时,IL-8的AUC为0.817,MELD评分的AUC为0.811,IL-8联合MELD评分预测60 d病死情况的AUC为0.841。入院时高IL-8水平(≥349.7 pg/ml)患者60 d总体生存率著低于低IL-8水平(<349.7 pg/ml)患者(36.4%vs.80.0%,Log-rank P<0.001)。结论血清IL-8水平作为评价HBV-ACLF患者短期预后指标具有较好的临床价值。     

MELD评分联合血小板/白细胞比值对HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者预后的预测价值

目的探讨终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分系统联合血小板/白细胞比值(PWR)在预测HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭(HBV-ACLF)短期预后中的价值。方法回顾性分析2014年6月—2019年6月苏州大学附属第一医院收治的123例HBVACLF患者的临床资料,根据其入院后90 d的预后分为生存组(n=53)和死亡组(n=70)。记录患者的年龄、性别及入院24 h内患者TBil、ALT、AST、GGT、ALP、SCr、Alb、前白蛋白(PAB)、INR、WBC、淋巴细胞计数(LY)、单核细胞计数(MO)、中性粒细胞计数(NE)、Hb、PLT,并计算PWR和MELD评分。计量资料2组间比较采用t检验或Mann-WhitneyU检验,单因素及多因素二元logistic回归分析各因素与HBV-ACLF预后的关系,并建立MELD评分联合PWR的预测模型。绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线),并计算约登指数、临界值、敏感度、特异度,比较单独MELD评分和MELD评分联合PWR的ROC曲线下面积(AUC),比较两者评价HBV-ACLF患者预后的价值。结果两组患者TBil、ALT、SCr、INR、WBC、MO、NE、Hb、PLT、PWR和MELD评分比较差异均有统计学意义(P值均0.05)。单因素分析显示,TBil、SCr、INR、WBC、MO、NE、MELD评分对HBV-ACLF患者的预后有影响(P值均0.05)。多因素分析显示,PWR(OR=0.883,95%CI:0.798～0.977,P=0.016)和MELD评分(OR=1.442,95%CI:1.225～1.698,P0.001)为HBV-ACLF患者预后的独立影响因素。MELD评分联合PWR(AUC=0.895,95%CI:0.827～0.943)对HBV-ACLF患者预后的预测能力高于单独MELD评分(AUC=0.842,95%CI:0.765～0.902),差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 MELD评分联合PWR可以提高MELD评分预测HBV-ACLF患者预后的预测效能。     

Antihypertensive therapy with diltiazem and comparison with hydrochlorothiazide

Fourteen hypertensive patients with a mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 153 +/- 16/100 +/- 4 mm Hg were treated successively with hydrochlorothiazide and diltiazem for 8 weeks each. The BP response and changes in heart rate, left ventricular size and function, and plasma catecholamine concentrations and renin activity were monitored. The 2 drugs had comparable antihypertensive effects, with mean decreases of 14, 9 and 11 mm Hg for the sitting, standing and supine diastolic BP, respectively, during hydrochlorothiazide treatment and mean decreases of 16, 18 and 12 mm Hg during diltiazem treatment. Heart rate was unchanged, although plasma norepinephrine concentrations increased significantly during diltiazem treatment. Plasma renin activity increased slightly, from 0.6 to 0.9 ng/ml/hour during diltiazem treatment, but the change was not significant (p less than 0.10). Left ventricular ejection fraction and end-diastolic volume were not affected by either agent. In conclusion, diltiazem is an effective antihypertensive agent, which because of its benign side effect profile, may be useful as a step 1 agent.     

Beta blocker overdose with propranolol and with atenolol

During a one-month period, two cases of beta-adrenergic blocker overdose were treated by the emergency staff at our hospital. One case of propranolol intoxication demonstrated profound cardiovascular collapse and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. The condition failed to respond to high-dose intravenous pressor agents, but did improve significantly with IV glucagon infusion. The second overdose involved atenolol. Although the blood levels reported were very high, the patient showed no cardiovascular compromise and required only inhaled bronchodilators for an exacerbation of her asthma.     

Life Events and Stress in Patients with Functional Dyspepsia Compared with Patients with Duodenal Ulcer and Healthy Controls

Background: Life events and stress may be important for functional dyspepsia and duodenal ulcer. Methods: The perception of life events in the preceding 6 months was recorded in 100 patients with functional dyspepsia, 100 patients with duodenal ulcer, and 100 healthy controls. In addition, psychologic and social factors were assessed. Results: Patients with functional dyspepsia experienced significantly more life events than patients with duodenal ulcer and healthy controls. The difference in life events between the groups was due to the difference in stressful life events. The patients with functional dyspepsia had higher levels of state-trait anxiety, general psychopathology, and depression than patients with duodenal ulcer and healthy controls. Conclusion: Patients with functional dyspepsia had higher scores on negative life events than patients with duodenal ulcer and healthy controls. This may be causally related to the higher levels of anxiety, depression, and general psychopathology in these patients.     

Safer colonoscopy with patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with propofol and alfentanil.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with propofol/alfentanil for colonoscopy compared with continuous drug infusion and conventional nurse-administered medication. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients undergoing colonoscopy on an outpatient basis were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 medication regimens. To maintain blinding, all patients were connected to an infusion pump. Group I patients could self-administer boluses of 4.8 mg propofol and 125 microg alfentanil without restriction. Group II patients received a continuous infusion with 0.048 mg/kg propofol and 0.12 microg/kg alfentanil per minute. Group III patients received intravenous premedication with 0.035 mg/kg midazolam and 0.35 mg/kg meperidine. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups with respect to pain (visual analogue scale) and procedure time. Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with propofol/alfentanil (group I) resulted in less of an increase in the transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide (p = 0.0004) during colonoscopy and less of a decrease in mean arterial blood pressure (p = 0.0021) during recovery, as well as more complete recovery (p = 0.0019) after 45 minutes compared with conventional administration of midazolam/meperidine. Furthermore, patient-controlled analgesia and sedation yielded a higher degree of patient satisfaction than continuous infusion of propofol/alfentanil (p = 0.0033) or nurse-administered midazolam/meperidine (p = 0.0094). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-controlled administration of propofol and alfentanil for colonoscopy may provide a better margin of safety than conventional administration of midazolam and meperidine and results in a higher level of patient satisfaction and shorter recovery.     

Refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts and RARS with thrombocytosis

Disease Overview : Ring sideroblasts (RS) are erythroid precursors with abnormal perinuclear mitochondrial iron accumulation. Two myeloid neoplasms defined by the presence of RS, include refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts (RARS) and RARS with thrombocytosis (RARS‐T). Diagnosis : RARS is a lower risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with dysplasia limited to the erythroid lineage, <5% bone marrow (BM) blasts and ≥15% BM RS. RARS‐T is a provisional entity in the MDS/MPN (myeloproliferative neoplasm) overlap syndromes, with diagnostic features of RARS, along with a platelet count ≥450 × 10(9)/L and large atypical megakaryocytes similar to those observed in BCR‐ABL1 negative MPN. Mutations and Karyotype : Mutations in the SF3B1 gene are seen in ≥80% of patients with RARS and RARS‐T, and strongly correlate with the presence of BM RS; RARS‐T patients have additional mutations such as, JAK2V617F (～60%), MPL (<5%), and CALR (<5%). Cytogenetic abnormalities are uncommon in both RARS and RARS‐T. Risk stratification : Most patients with RARS are stratified into lower risk groups by the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) for MDS and the revised IPSS. Disease outcome in RARS‐T is better than that of RARS, but worse than that of essential thrombocytosis. Both RARS and RARS‐T have a low risk of leukemic transformation. Treatment : Anemia and iron overload are complications in both diseases and are managed similar to lower risk MDS. Aspirin therapy is reasonable in RARS‐T, especially in the presence of JAK2V617F, but the value of platelet‐lowering drugs is uncertain. Case reports of RARS‐T therapy with lenalidomide warrant additional studies. Am. J. Hematol. 90:550–559, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.