Intervention rates and outcomes in medically managed uncomplicated descending thoracic aortic dissections

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term incidence and outcome of aortic interventions for medically managed uncomplicated thoracic aortic dissections.MethodsBetween January 2012 and December 2018, 91 patients were discharged home with an uncomplicated, medically treated aortic dissection (involving the descending aorta with or without aortic arch involvement, no ascending involvement). After a median period of 4 (first quartile: 2, third quartile: 11) months, 30 patients (33%) required an aortic intervention. Patient characteristics, radiographic, treatment, and follow-up data were compared for patients with and without aortic interventions. A competing risk regression model was analyzed to identify independent predictors of aortic intervention and to predict the risk for intervention.ResultsPatients who underwent aortic interventions had significantly larger thoracic (P = .041) and abdominal (P = .015) aortic diameters, the dissection was significantly longer (P = .035), there were more communications between both lumina (P = .040), and the first communication was significantly closer to the left subclavian artery (P = .049). A descending thoracic aortic diameter exceeding 45 mm was predictive for an aortic intervention (P = .001; subdistribution hazard ratio: 3.51). The risk for aortic intervention was 27% ± 10% and 36% ± 11% after 1 and 3 years, respectively. Fourteen patients (47%) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 11 patients (37%) thoracic endovascular aortic repair and left carotid to subclavian bypass, 3 patients (10%) total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique, and 2 patients (7%) thoracoabdominal aortic replacement. We observed no in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsThe need for secondary aortic interventions in patients with initially medically managed, uncomplicated descending aortic dissections is substantial. The full spectrum of aortic treatment options (endovascular, hybrid, conventional open surgical) is required in these patients.     

重组人表皮生长因子凝胶联合CO2点阵激光治疗增生性瘢痕的效果观察

目的观察重组人表皮生长因子凝胶联合CO₂点阵激光治疗烧伤及创伤后增生性瘢痕的临床效果。 方法选择2020年12月至2021年10月安徽医科大学第一附属医院烧伤与创面修复外科收治的20例增生性瘢痕患者，按照随机数字表法将患者分为联合治疗组及单纯激光治疗组，每组10例。术前均对2组患者术区进行拍照存像、消毒、擦干，局部均匀涂抹5%复方利多卡因乳膏后以无菌薄膜封闭保护60 min，擦去乳膏后再次消毒术区。术中使用CO₂点阵激光治疗仪对患者瘢痕部位进行扫描，根据患者增生性瘢痕厚度选定合适的机器参数，维持机器频率300 Hz及密度5%，在20～30 J调整能量参数的大小，时间间隔1 s，保证点阵矩形完全覆盖增生瘢痕，允许2次激光形成的热损伤矩阵之间存在25%面积的重叠。术后即刻冷敷创面60 min，冷敷结束至术后1周，单纯激光治疗组不外用任何药物，联合治疗组术区加用重组人表皮生长因子凝胶外用，3次/d。术后3 d治疗部位不碰水，若出现感染情况，可以加用抗生素软膏，点状损伤创面外痂皮未掉落完全时禁止擦洗创面，禁止直接剥除痂皮，禁止术区涂抹化妆品等，避免接受阳光直射。于第1次激光治疗后2个月进行第2次激光治疗，以2次CO₂点阵激光治疗为1个疗程，1个疗程治疗后间隔2个月待术区稳定后行疗效判断，计算2组患者治疗的总有效率；根据温哥华瘢痕量表(VSS)与患者与观察者瘢痕评估量表(POSAS)对患者治疗前、第1次激光治疗后2个月、第2次激光治疗后2个月瘢痕的各项指标进行评分。数据比较采用重复测量方差分析和χ²检验。 结果(1)治疗1个疗程后2个月，单纯激光治疗组与联合治疗组患者治疗的总有效率分别为80%(8/10)、90%(9/10)，2组间比较差异无统计学意义(χ²＝2.40，P＝0.49)。(2)对2组VSS评分的各项指标进行比较，其中疼痛、瘙痒、柔软度及厚度评分的组内及组间各时相点比较，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗前、第1次激光治疗后2个月及第2次激光治疗后2个月，单纯激光治疗组VSS评分中色泽评分分别为(1.9±0.7)、(1.9±0.1)、(1.8±1.0)分，联合治疗组分别为(2.9±0.7)、(2.8±0.6)、(1.9±0.7)分，2组在不同时相点组内比较，差异有统计学意义(F＝ 26.143，P<0.05)；2组组间不同时相点比较，差异有统计学意义(F＝6.753，P＝0.018)。治疗前、第1次激光治疗后2个月及第2次激光治疗后2个月，单纯激光治疗组VSS评分中血管分布评分分别为(1.8±1.0)、(1.7±0.7)、(1.5±1.0)分，联合治疗组分别为(2.6±0.5)、(2.5±0.5)、(1.7±0.8)分，2组在不同时相点组内比较，差异有统计学意义(F＝17.603，P<0.05)，2组组间不同时相点比较，差异无统计学意义(F＝ 2.538，P＝0.129)。(3)对2组POSAS评分的各项指标进行比较，其中厚度、粗糙度、柔软度和表面积评分的组内及组间各时相点比较，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗前、第1次激光治疗后2个月及第2次激光治疗后2个月，单纯激光治疗组POSAS评分中色泽评分分别为(4.9±2.6)、(4.1±0.8)、(3.5±2.0)分，联合治疗组分别为(7.6±1.1)、(6.8±1.4)、(5.4±1.8)分，2组在不同时相点组内比较，差异有统计学意义(F＝ 26.509，P<0.05)，2组组间不同时相点比较，差异有统计学意义(F＝ 8.973，P＝0.008)。治疗前、第1次激光治疗后2个月及第2次激光治疗后2个月，单纯激光治疗组POSAS评分中血管分布评分分别为(4.4±2.1)、(3.9±0.9)、(3.5±1.6)分，联合治疗组分别为(6.3±1.1)、(5.7±2.0)、(4.5±1.6)分，2组在不同时相点组内比较，差异有统计学意义(F＝ 20.118，P<0.05)，2组组间不同时相点比较，差异有统计学意义(F＝ 5.744，P＝0.028)。 结论重组人表皮生长因子凝胶联合CO₂点阵激光及单独使用CO₂点阵激光治疗增生性瘢痕均效果明确，但联合使用重组人表皮生长因子凝胶能有效促进创面愈合、改善瘢痕组织血管分布和减少局部色素沉着。     

Impact of Adding Oseltamivir to Usual Care on Quality-Adjusted Life-Years During Influenza-Like Illness

ObjectivesThe ALIC⁴E trial has shown that oseltamivir reduces recovery time while increasing the risk of nausea. This secondary analysis of the ALIC⁴E trial aimed to determine the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in patients presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI).MethodsPatients with ILI were recruited during the influenza season (2015-2018) in 15 European countries. Patients were assigned to usual care with or without oseltamivir through stratified randomization (age, severity, comorbidities, and symptom onset). Patients’ health status was valued with the EQ-5D and visual analog scale (VAS) for up to 28 days. Average EQ-5D and VAS scores over time were estimated for both treatment groups using one-inflated beta regression in children (<13 years old) and adults (≥13 years old). QALY gain was calculated as the difference between the groups. Sensitivity analysis considered the value set to convert EQ-5D answers to summary scores and the follow-up period.ResultsIn adults, oseltamivir gained 0.0006 (95% confidence interval 0.0002-0.0010) QALYs, whereas no statistically significant gain was found in children (14-day follow-up, EQ-5D). QALY gains were statistically significant in patients aged ≥65 years, patients without relevant comorbidities, or patients experiencing symptoms for ≤48 hours. Using VAS and accounting for 28-day follow-up resulted in higher QALY gain.ConclusionsQALY gain owing to oseltamivir is limited compared with other diseases, and its clinical meaningfulness remains to be determined. Further analysis is needed to evaluate whether QALY gain and its impact on ILI treatment cost render oseltamivir cost-effective.     

持续性特发性耳鸣严重程度的相关因素分析

目的 探讨导致持续性特发性耳鸣严重程度的相关因素。 方法 分析870例持续性特发性主观性耳鸣患者的一般资料、病史、听力学结果、耳鸣匹配实验、耳鸣残疾量表、匹兹堡睡眠质量指数量表和焦虑自评量表,应用多因素Logistic回归分析研究与患者耳鸣严重程度相关的因素。 结果 (1)性别(P<0.001)、年龄(P=0.010)、耳鸣主调声频率(P=0.005)、听力损失(P=0.037)、焦虑程度(P<0.001)、睡眠状况(P<0.001)在THI分级上差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);(2)病程(P=0.053)、侧别(P=0.437)、主调声响度(P=0.120)在THI分级上差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 女性患者特发性耳鸣的程度较男性更为严重;低频较高频更扰人;焦虑程度和睡眠状况是影响耳鸣严重程度的因素,而病程、侧别、耳鸣主调声响度不是影响患者特发性耳鸣严重程度的因素。