Factors Affecting Recurrent Deep Vein Thrombosis after Pharmacomechanical Thrombolysis and Left Iliac Vein Stent Placement in Patients with Iliac Vein Compression Syndrome

PurposeThis study evaluated the factors affecting contralateral and ipsilateral recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after iliac vein stent placement in patients with iliac vein compression syndrome (IVCS).Materials and MethodsData from 130 patients (95 female patients) who underwent catheter-directed thrombolysis and stent placement for IVCS with left lower leg thrombosis at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. Mean patient age was 69.0 ± 14.0 years old. Median follow-up was 14 months (range, 3–164 months). Anticoagulation therapy was prescribed for 6 months, followed by lifelong antiplatelet therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the factors affecting the development of contralateral and ipsilateral recurrent DVT.ResultsSeven patients (5.4%) developed contralateral DVT (median, 26 months; range, 2–61 months), and 11 patients (8.5%) developed ipsilateral DVT (median, 1 month; range, 0–53 months). Stent location (odds ratio [OR], 11.564; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.159–115.417) and in-stent thrombosis during follow-up (OR, 15.142; 95% CI, 1.406–163.119) were predictors of recurrent contralateral DVT. Thrombophilia (OR, 47.560; 95% CI, 2.369–954.711), remaining inferior vena cava filter (OR, 30.552; 95% CI, 3.495–267.122), and in-stent thrombosis during follow-up (OR, 82.057; 95% CI, 2.915–2309.848) were predictors of ipsilateral DVT.ConclusionsContralateral DVT occurs late and is associated with extension of the iliac vein stent to the inferior vena cava and in-stent thrombosis. Ipsilateral DVT occurs relatively early and is associated with thrombophilia, remaining inferior vena cava filter, and in-stent thrombosis.     

Beliefs and expectations of rural hospital practitioners towards a developing trauma system: A qualitative case study

BackgroundAn understanding of stakeholders’ views is key to the successful development and operation of a rural trauma system. Scotland, which has large remote and rural areas, is currently implementing a national trauma system. The aim of this study was to identify key barriers and enablers to the development of an effective trauma system from the perspective of rural healthcare professionals.MethodsThis is a qualitative study, which was conducted in rural general hospitals (RGH) in Scotland, from April to June 2017. We used an opportunistic sampling strategy to include hospital providers of rural trauma care across the region. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify and group participant perspectives on key barriers and enablers to the development of the new trauma system.ResultsWe conducted 15 interviews with 18 participants in six RGHs. Study participants described barriers and enablers across three themes: 1) quality of care, 2) interfaces within the system and 3) interfaces with the wider healthcare system. For quality of care, enablers included confidence in basic trauma management, whilst a perceived lack of change from current management was seen as a barrier. The theme of interfaces within the system identified good interaction with other services and a single point of contact for referral as enablers. Perceived barriers included challenges in referring to tertiary care. The final theme of interfaces with the wider healthcare system included an improved transport system, increased audit resource and coordinated clinical training as enablers. Perceived barriers included a rural staffing crisis and problematic patient transfer to further care.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into rural professionals’ perceptions regarding the implementation of a trauma system in rural Scotland. Barriers included practical issues, such as retrieval, transfer and referral processes. Importantly, there is a degree of uncertainty, discontent and disengagement towards trauma system development, and concerns regarding staffing levels and governance. These issues are unlikely to be unique to Scotland and warrant further study to inform service planning and the effective delivery of rural trauma systems.     

尿培养病原菌分布及耐药性分析

目的了解医院门诊和住院患者尿培养中病原菌分布及耐药性,为临床治疗提供参考依据。方法 651株病原菌分离自2011年1月-2012年12月医院门诊和住院患者的尿液标本,采用MicroScan WalkAway-plus全自动微生物鉴定和药敏分析系统进行菌株鉴定和药敏试验,采用WHONET5.6软件进行统计分析。结果共分离病原菌651株,检出排前3位依次为大肠埃希菌、粪肠球菌、凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌,分别占46.2%、16.6%、8.5%;301株大肠埃希菌中有219株产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBLs),占72.8%;大肠埃希菌对阿莫西林/克拉维酸、阿米卡星、亚胺培南较为敏感,耐药率为12.0%、9.0%和1.3%;132株肠球菌属中发现2株耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE),均为粪肠球菌,万古霉素对这两株VRE的MIC为32³26mg/L,粪肠球菌和屎肠球菌对万古霉素和利奈唑胺的耐药率均较低;分离的凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(CNS)中,最常见的是表皮葡萄球菌占50.9%;55株CNS中耐甲氧西林凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(MRCNS)的检出率为65.5%,CNS对呋喃妥因、克林沙星、利奈唑胺、利福平、万古霉素较敏感。结论临床应根据尿培养药敏结果合理应用抗菌药物,控制耐药率的上升。