不同时期COPD患者血清DcR3、Survivin表达水平及临床意义

目的 探讨不同时期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者血清诱饵受体3(DcR3)、凋亡抑制蛋白(Survivin)表达水平及临床意义。方法 选取2018年9月—2019年12月本院收治的92名COPD患者为研究对象,其中稳定型COPD 50例,急性加重期COPD 42例;同期本院健康体检者88例为对照组。测定各组研究对象血清DcR3、Survivin水平及肺功能指标。 与对照组[DcR3(106.54±48.35)pg/mL,Survivin(98.85±26.59)pg/mL]比较,稳定期组和急性加重期组血清DcR3[(395.23±123.85)pg/mL,(1 248.81±213.59)pg/mL]、Survivin [(267.54±84.69)pg/mL,(1 233.95±307.26)pg/mL]水平升高;与稳定期组比较,急性加重期组血清DcR3、Survivin水平升高。与对照组比较,稳定期组和急性加重期组FEV1%、FEV1 /FVC、DLCO%水平降低(P<0.001);与稳定期组比较,急性加重期组FEV1%、FEV1 /FVC、DLCO%水平降低(P<0.001)。随着低氧血症严重程度的增加,COPD患者血清DcR3、Survivin水平逐渐增加(P<0.001)。多因素logistics回归分析显示,高水平DcR3、Survivin、IL-12、hs-CRP为COPD病情的危险因素(P<0.001)。DcR3、Survivin与FEV、FEV1 /FVC呈负相关,与IL-12、TNF-α、hs-CRP呈正相关(P<0.001)。 COPD稳定期、急性加重期患者血清DcR3、Survivin表达水平升高,且DcR3、Survivin与COPD病情严重程度呈正相关。     

项目管理在降低呼吸重症监护室环境物品表面多重耐药菌检出率中的应用

目的:探讨项目管理在降低呼吸重症监护室(RICU)环境物品表面多重耐药菌检出率中的应用效果。方法:采用目的抽样方法,选取医院呼吸与危重症医学科RICU 17张编制床位、32处高频接触环境物品表面及42名工作人员为观察对象。2019年1月—2019年3月实施RICU常规管理,2019年4月—2019年6月实施项目管理。比较项目管理前后RICU各类别工作人员手卫生依从率、RICU环境物品表面清洁合格率及多重耐药菌检出率。结果:在项目管理后RICU各类别工作人员手卫生依从率均高于项目管理前(P<0.05);项目管理后RICU环境物品表面清洁合格率较项目管理前升高(P<0.05);项目管理后多重耐药菌(MDRO)病人床单位及病区办公区域环境物体表面的耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)和耐碳青霉烯鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)检出率均较项目管理前降低(P<0.05)。结论:项目管理可有效提高RICU各类别工作人员手卫生依从性及环境物品表面清洁合格率,降低RICU环境物品表面多重耐药菌检出率。     

Clinical characteristics of pediatric patients with COVID-19 between Omicron era vs. pre-Omicron era

IntroductionDetailed data on clinical characteristics in children with the omicron strain of SARS-COV-2 are limited.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study of children with COVID-19 at the National Center for Child Health and Development to evaluate the clinical manifestations during and before the emergence of the omicron variant. Only symptomatic patients without underlying diseases were included. Participants were divided into two temporal groups: the “omicron era” (1/2022–2/2022) and the “pre-omicron era,” where the delta variant predominated (7/2021–11/2021). The patients were subclassified into an older vaccine-eligible group (aged 12–17 years), a younger vaccine-eligible group (aged 5–11 years), and a vaccine-ineligible group (aged 0–4 years).ResultsWe compared 113 patients in the omicron era with 106 in the pre-omicron era. Most patients in both eras had non-severe disease, and no patients required mechanical ventilation or died. Among patients aged 0–4 years, sore throat and hoarseness were more common during the omicron era than the pre-omicron era (11.1% vs. 0.0% and 11.1% vs. 1.5%, respectively). Croup syndrome was diagnosed in all patients with hoarseness. Among patients aged 5–11 years, vomiting was more frequent during the omicron era (47.2%) than during the pre-omicron era (21.7%). Cough and rhinorrhea were less common during the omicron era in patients aged 0–4 and 5–11 years, respectively, than during the pre-omicron era.ConclusionsIn children with COVID-19, clinical manifestations differed between the omicron and pre-omicron eras. In the Omicron era, croup syndrome was more frequent in vaccine-ineligible children.     

Practice developments supporting change implementation in Wellington,New Zealand (NZ) for ‘continuity of care when transitioning complex preterm infants from NICU to home’

The discussion paper will focus on continuity of care relating to previous NZ research, specifically to transitioning complex preterm infants from NICU to home based on parent experiences, and on the practice developments that have occurred, to ensure optimal health outcomes. Previous NZ research discovered parent desire a consistent service delivery for the entire transition journey from NICU and at home.An informative and comprehensive opportunity has occurred for reflective professional practice, evaluation, development and implementation which have transpired in positive change through innovative practice developments and support change implementation in Wellington, NZ. This has resulted in the articulation of a model of care that has both embraced and integrated parental desires for a continuity of care process for complex preterm infants. This has been achieved by having the same Discharge Facilitator/Key Case Manager present within the NICU and external to the NICU for Home-based infants for the entire transition journey.The paper will focus and emphasis additional practice development changes and furthermore, will present a real purpose, for other countries to learn of such practice developments that have exemplified a celebratory success for families of Wellington, NZ.     

Health-related quality of life after isolated limb perfusion compared to extended resection,or amputation for locally advanced extremity sarcoma: Is a limb salvage strategy worth the effort?

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with locally advanced extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS) after isolated limb perfusion followed by resection (IR), compared to extended resection (ER), primary amputation (A) or secondary amputation after IR (IR-A).MethodsPatients were selected from the respondents of a multi-institutional cross-sectional cohort survivorship study (SURVSARC) conducted among sarcoma survivors registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), 2–10 years after diagnosis. Used PROs were the EORTC QLQ-C30, the Cancer worry scale (CWS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS).ResultsWe identified 97 eSTS survivors: IR = 20, ER = 49, A = 20, IR-A = 8. While there were no differences in PROs between IR and ER, results showed better functioning and functionality in both groups versus the amputation groups. The amputation groups scored significantly lower on physical functioning (A = 62.7, IR-A = 65.7 versus IR = 78.0, ER = 82.7, p = 0.001) and role functioning (A = 67.5, IR-A = 52.8 versus IR = 79.2, ER = 80.6, p = 0.039), both EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Also for the TESS, the scores were significantly lower for the amputation groups compared to the limb sparing groups (upper extremity p = 0.007 with A = 68.9, IR-A = 71.6 versus IR = 93.3, ER = 91.1; lower extremity p < 0.001 with A = 72.2, IR-A50.9 versus IR = 84.5 and ER = 85.5). There were no significant differences between the groups on cancer worry, anxiety and depression.ConclusionHRQoL in eSTS survivors treated with IR or ER is equal; for maintenance of physical functioning and functionality IR and ER outperform an amputation.