飞秒激光辅助超声乳化联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术治疗合并难治性青光眼的白内障

目的：评估飞秒激光辅助超声乳化联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术治疗合并难治性青光眼的白内障的有效性和安全性。

方法：回顾性病例对照研究。2019-10/2021-10入院合并难治性青光眼的白内障患者53例53眼，依据自愿选择分为飞秒激光辅助白内障超声乳化(FLACS)组26例26眼和常规白内障超声乳化(CPCS)组27例27眼。两组分别行FLACS和CPCS联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术。比较两组患者术中超声乳化能量释放量(CDE)、有效超声时间(EPT)的差异和术前与术后抗青光眼药物数量的变化，以及术后观察不同时期(1d，1wk，1、3mo)在提高最佳矫正视力(BCVA)，降低眼压、角膜内皮细胞损伤程度和手术并发症及成功率状况。

结果：FLACS组术中CDE和EPT明显低于CPCS组(t=8.50、5.16； P<0.01、=0.001)。两组术后抗青光眼药物较术前均明显减少(t=9.12、7.76； P=0.011、0.016)，但两组间无差异(t=1.79，P=0.082)。两组术后BCVA均较术前改善，眼压均较术前降低(P<0.05)。FLACS组在术后早期(1d，1wk)BCVA的改善较CPCS组更显著(t=9.74、8.49； P=0.008、0.012)，但在术后1、3mo的BCVA改善程度并无不同(t=0.62、0.44； P=1.415、2.021)。CPCS组在术后随访不同时期的角膜内皮细胞损伤较FLACS组更明显(P<0.05)。术后随访的不同时期FLACS组和CPCS组在控制眼压方面无差异(F_组间=0.64，P_组间=0.421)。FLACS组的手术并发症发生率27%(7/26)较CPCS组89%(24/27)低(χ²=20.95，P<0.01)，其中角膜水肿(8% vs 41%)、前囊撕裂(0 vs 11%)在FLACS组中明显低于CPCS组，后囊破裂(0 vs 7%)、玻璃体脱出(0 vs 4%)及人工晶状体偏位(0 vs 7%)也均发生在CPCS组。但两组的治疗总成功率相近(P=28.718)。

结论：飞秒激光辅助超声乳化联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术可充分发挥联合手术的精准微创可控优势，帮助合并难治性青光眼的白内障患者有效降低眼压及更早获得视力恢复。     

Successful treatment of linezolid-induced severe lactic acidosis with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration: A case report

Linezolid is an oxazolidinone antibiotic. Linezolid-associated lactic acidosis has been reported in 6.8% of linezolid-treated patients. Lactic acidosis is associated with poor clinical outcomes, with high blood lactate levels resulting in organ dysfunction and mortality. This case report describes the development of lactic acidosis in a 64-year-old Chinese woman who had received 33 days of treatment with antituberculosis drugs and 28 days of treatment with oral linezolid for tuberculous meningitis. Severe lactic acidosis was reversed by withdrawing antituberculosis drugs and using continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVH). When the patient's condition was stable, she was transferred to the infectious disease department, and antituberculosis drugs, with the exception of linezolid, were reintroduced. This did not result in recurrence of lactic acidosis. The causal relationship between lactic acidosis and linezolid was categorized as ‘probable’ on the Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale. This case demonstrates that CVVH has potential as an alternative to discontinuation of linezolid alone for rapid reversal of linezolid-associated severe lactic acidosis.     

经鼻高流量氧气湿化治疗老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭的可行性研究

ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility of transnasal heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with respiratory failure in elderly patients. MethodsA total of 176 elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with respiratory failure who were hospitalized at Peking University Shougang Hospital from December 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled, including 82 patients in an HFNC group and 94 patients in an NPPV group. After treatment, pulse oxygen saturation (SPO₂), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), comfort score, discharge rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, rate of transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were compared between the two groups. The independent sample t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Statistical data are expressed in percentage or number of cases and the χ² test was used for their comparisons. ResultsThe SPO₂ values at 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h were significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.049,-2.618, and -3.314, P=0.043, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). SPO₂ before discharge was significantly lower than that of the NPPV group (t=2.162, P=0.033), but OI at each time point and before discharge had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). MAP at 6 h was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.209, P=0.029), but within the normal range. HRs at 2 h and 3 h in the HFNC group were significantly higher than those of the NPPV group (t=-2.199 and -2.336, P=0.030 and 0.021, respectively). There were no significant differences in RR, HR, or MAP between the two groups at other time points and before discharge (P＞0.05). There was no significant difference in PaCO2 between the two groups (P＞0.05). Comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NPPV group (t=-46.807, P＜0.001). There were no significant differences in discharge rate, ICU transfer rate, endotracheal intubation rate, and mortality between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionHFNC is as effective as NPPV in treating elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with type Ⅰ or mild type Ⅱ respiratory failure, and HFNC is more comfortable than NPPV.