Risk factors for major complications after liver resection: A large liver resection study from Morocco and audit of a non-Eastern/non-Western experience

Background and Study AimsIn developing countries, endemic indications, blood shortages, and the scarcity of liver surgeons and intensive care providers can affect liver resection (LR) outcomes, but these have been rarely addressed in the literature. Therefore, in this study we determined risk factors for major complications after LR in a North African general surgery and teaching department.Patients and MethodsFrom January 2010 to December 2015, 213 consecutive LRs were performed on 203 patients. All patients underwent a postoperative follow-up of >90 days. Postoperative complications were assessed according to the Clavien–Dindo (CD) classification of surgical complications. A score of CD ≥III is considered as major postoperative complications. In this study, we analyzed the variables assumed to affect these complications.ResultsThe overall 90-day complication rate was 35.7% (n = 76), including a CD ≥III of 14% (n = 30) and a mortality rate of 6.1% (n = 14). According to the multivariate analysis, a preoperative performance status (PS) of ≥2 (P = 0.011; odds ratios [OR], 6.8; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.55–29.8), an estimated intraoperative blood loss of >500 ml (P = 0.002; OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.23–11.20), and bilioenteric anastomosis (P < 0.004; OR, 7.76; 95% CI, 1.5–3.89) were independent risk factors for major complications after LR.ConclusionWe recommend that, in the setting of a non-Eastern/non-Western general surgery and teaching department, patients with a PS of ≥2 should undergo a specific selection and preoperative optimization protocol; intermittent clamping indications should be extended; and special attention should paid to patients undergoing LR associated with biliary reconstruction, such as for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.     

Impact and Predictors of Noncircular Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Shapes on Estimating Aortic Stenosis Severity by Means of Continuity Equations

Determining aortic stenosis (AS) severity is clinically important. Calculating aortic valve (AV) area by means of the continuity equation assumes a circular left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). The full impact of this assumption in calculating AV area is unknown. Predictors of noncircular LVOT shape in patients with AS are undefined.In 109 adult patients with AS who underwent multiplanar transesophageal echocardiography, we calculated AV area by means of the standard continuity method and by a modified method involving planimetric LVOT area.We found 54 circular, 37 horizontal-oval, 8 vertical-oval, and 10 irregular LVOTs. Area derived by direct planimetry correlated better with the modified than the standard continuity method (r=0.89 vs r=0.85; both P=0.0001). Valve areas of patients with mild, moderate, or severe AS by planimetry were more often mischaracterized with use of the standard than modified method (29 vs 18; P <0.0001). Horizontal-oval AV area derived by planimetry (1.28 ± 0.55 cm²) was underestimated by the standard method (1.05 ± 0.47 cm²; P=0.001), but not by the modified method. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index were the only multivariate predictors of horizontal-oval shape. Low cardiac index was the only predictor of noncircular shape.More than half our patients with AS had noncircular LVOTs. Using the modified method reduces mischaracterizations of AS severity. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index predict horizontal-oval or noncircular shape. These data suggest the value of direct LVOT measurement to calculate AS severity in patients who have congenital AV or a low cardiac index.     

LC-MS/MS法测定人血浆中布康唑浓度的不确定度评定

目的：评定LC-MS/MS法测定人血浆中布康唑浓度的不确定度。方法：分析测定过程中不确定度的来源，包括对照品的称量、仪器误差、标准溶液的配制、含药血浆样品的配制、血浆样品的处理、标准曲线的拟合、基质效应、重复性等，评定各来源分量的不确定度，计算合成不确定度和扩展不确定度。结果：人血浆中低（60.0 pg·mL^-1）、中（600.0 pg·mL^-1）、高（6 400.0 pg·mL^-1）浓度布康唑的扩展不确定度分别为5.62，63.90，626.26 pg·mL^-1（k=2，P=95%）。结论：LC-MS/MS法测定人血浆中布康唑浓度的不确定度主要由基质效应、血浆样品的处理（提取回收率），仪器误差、重复性（精密度）引入。     

Moving Toward Empirically Based Standardization in the Diagnosis of Delayed Ejaculation

BackgroundCriteria for delayed ejaculation (DE) rely on a long ejaculation latency (EL) time, lack of control/advancement regarding ejaculation, and associated bother/distress; yet, few studies have investigated these criteria in men who indicate the desire to ejaculate sooner during partnered sex.AimTo help standardize criteria for DE by better understanding characteristics of men who desire to ejaculate sooner during partnered sex in terms of their EL, reported ejaculatory control, and level of bother/distress, as well as their perceptions of typical and ideal ELs for men in general and of ELs for men with premature ejaculation (PE).MethodsA total of 572 men recruited through social media responded to an online survey regarding their EL, as well as typical, ideal, and PE ELs of men in general. They also rated (i) their ability to control and/or advance ejaculation and (ii) their level of associated bother/distress. 4 comparison groups were then established: men with probable DE (with [DE1] and without [DE2] ejaculatory control issues), a reference group with no ejaculatory disorders, and men who identified as having PE.OutcomesTo demonstrate differences in EL, ejaculatory control, and bother/distress between men with delayed ejaculation and the control and PE reference groups.ResultsELs for men with probable DE were twice as long as those with no ejaculatory disorders. When probable DE men were further subdivided into DE2 and DE1, differences were greater for the DE2 group. DE2 men also differed significantly from the reference group on ejaculatory control/advancement but not on bother/distress. Both DE and reference groups differed from the PE group.Clinical ImplicationsUsing both EL and ejaculatory control are useful in distinguishing men with delayed ejaculation from men without delayed ejaculation.Strengths & LimitationsA sizable sample drawn from a multinational population powered the study, whereas the use of social media for recruitment limited the generalizability of findings.ConclusionBoth EL and ejaculatory control differentiate men with probable DE from a control reference group having no ejaculatory disorders. Differences in bother/distress did not emerge as significant. Implications for diagnosing men with DE are presented.Rowland DL, Cote-Leger P. Moving Toward Empirically Based Standardization in the Diagnosis of Delayed Ejaculation. J Sex Med 2020;17:1896–1902.     

艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗慢性丙型肝炎患者疗效初步观察

目的 初步探讨应用艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗慢性丙型肝炎(CHC)患者的疗效。方法 2017年3月~2018年3月仙桃市第一人民医院感染病科收治的CHC患者82例,被随机分为对照组41例和观察组41例,分别给予聚乙二醇干扰素-α联合利巴韦林治疗和艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗,两组均连续治疗24周。采用RT- PCR法检测血清 HCV RNA,采用全基因序列测定法行病毒基因分型。比较两组早期病毒学应答(EVR)、治疗结束时病毒学应答(ETVR)和持续病毒学应答(SVR)。结果 在治疗结束时,观察组血清丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)水平为(47.9±19.7)U/L,显著低于对照组【(63.5±21.2)U/L,P<0.05】,天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)水平为(55.5±22.3)U/L,显著低于对照组【(81.3±25.8)U/L,P<0.05】;观察组EVR、ETVR和SVR分别为48.8%、63.4%和70.7%,与对照组的41.5%、53.7%和65.8%比,无统计学差异(P>0.05);18例观察组非HCV Ⅰ型感染者EVR、ETVR和SVR分别为88.9%、94.4%和88.9%,显著高于同组23例HCV Ⅰ型感染者(分别为52.2%、60.9%和52.2%, P<0.05),而与对照组15例非HCV Ⅰ型感染者比,无统计学差异(分别为86.7%、93.3%和73.3%, P>0.05);观察组SVR₁₂为87.8%(36/41),显著高于对照组的73.2%(30/41,P<0.05)。结论 应用直接抗病毒(DAA)药物艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗CHC患者近期疗效达到,但远期疗效似优于标准治疗方案, 值得临床进一步验证。