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。     

基于理论域框架的ICU护士执行身体约束缩减行动障碍因素的质性研究

目的：探讨ICU护士执行身体约束缩减行动的障碍因素，为制定身体约束标准化管理方案提供依据。方法：基于理论域框架（TDF）制定访谈提纲，采用目的抽样法对天津市某三级甲等医院的12名ICU护士进行半结构式访谈，按照TDF的相关领域对转录后的资料进行归类，用内容分析法对访谈资料进行分析。结果：ICU护士对身体约束缩减行动理解存在偏差、对约束替代措施内容的不熟悉是其执行身体约束缩减行动的障碍因素之一；身体约束缩减方案评估工具、决策流程的不规范对缩减约束行动的开展造成了一定阻碍；环境因素的限制及对缩减约束结果的担忧，使ICU护士没有足够的信心去执行；科室缺乏支持缩减约束的组织氛围，难以引起护士对执行约束缩减行动的重视，进而削减执行的动力。结合理论域框架将上述因素分别归属为知识、自我效能、环境背景和资源、社会影响、行为规范5个领域。结论：知识、自我效能、环境背景和资源、社会影响及行为规范为ICU护士执行身体约束缩减行动的障碍因素。科室要在明确障碍因素的基础上，加强领导层对执行缩减约束的重视和支持。制定缩减约束评估决策规范化流程以及培训方案，倡导团队协作，创造支持身体约束缩减行动的组织氛围，坚定ICU护士执行缩减约束的信心，促进身体约束缩减行动的持续实施。     

Disparity in Utilization of Multiagent Therapy for Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in the United States

BackgroundDespite high rate of cure in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) in clinical trials, outcomes in real-world practice are dismal. We utilized National Cancer Database (NCDB) to explore utilization of multiagent therapy in APL and identify any disparities in treatment in real-world practices.Patients and MethodsNCDB categorizes use of systemic chemotherapy into single agent versus multiagent therapy. Some patients received hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and unknown therapy; details of these treatments could not be ascertained. We therefore used multiple logistic regression analysis to evaluate effects of covariates on the probability of multiagent therapy use in 6678 patients.ResultsCompared to patients >60 years, patients aged 0 to 18 years (hazard ratio[HR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-5.5, P< .0001), 19 to 40 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.03-2.54, P= .03), and 41 to 60 years (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9, P< .0001) were more likely to receive multiagent therapy. Patients with Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of 0 (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3, P= .001) and CCI of 1 (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9, P= .04) had a higher likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy than patients with CCI ≥ 3. Patients treated at academic cancer centers, compared to those treated at community cancer center (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, P= .001), comprehensive community cancer center (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8, P< .0001), and integrated network cancer center (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9, P= .02) were more likely to be treated with multiagent therapy. Compared to the patients with private insurance, those with Medicaid had increased likelihood (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, P= .04) whereas uninsured patients had a lower likelihood of receiving multiagent therapy (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.8, P= .0005).ConclusionTo our knowledge, this study is the first and the largest scale analysis of treatment practices in APL in real-world practices. Our findings highlight significant disparities in treatment of APL based on age, insurance, and health-system factors.     

Justifying Clinical Deception: Some Amendments to Brummett and Salter

In Abram Brummett and Erica K. Salter's excellent paper, “Mapping the Moral Terrain of Clinical Deception,” they rightly note that it is sometimes ethically appropriate for health care professionals to deceive patients and families. However, they also note that because doing so violates a prima facie duty of honesty, the ethical burden of proof falls upon the deceiver. Hence, they also provide a sophisticated framework for determining whether any given case is warranted. I applaud their overall approach but also critique some of their claims, in particular, their conclusion that lies of commission require greater justification than those of omission and their conflation of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. I also urge them to give greater attention to how power asymmetries should be accounted for and to the impact such deceptive choices might have on the clinician's character.     

Pure laparoscopic living donor liver transplantation: Dreams come true

Minimally invasive approaches are increasingly being applied in surgeries and have recently been used in living donor hepatectomy. We have developed a safe and reproducible method for minimally invasive living donor liver transplantation, which consists of pure laparoscopic explant hepatectomy and pure laparoscopic implantation of the graft, which was inserted through a suprapubic incision. Pure laparoscopic explant hepatectomy without liver fragmentation was performed in a 60-year-old man with alcoholic liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The explanted liver was retrieved through a suprapubic incision. A modified right liver graft, procured from his 24-year-old son using the pure laparoscopic method, was inserted through a suprapubic incision, and implantation was performed intracorporeally throughout the procedure. The time required to remove the liver was 369 min, and the total operative time was 960 min. No complications occurred during or after the surgery. The patient recovered well, and his hospital stay was of 11 days. Pure laparoscopic living donor liver transplantation from explant hepatectomy to implantation was performed successfully. It is a feasible procedure when performed by a highly experienced surgeon and transplantation team. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm its safety and feasibility.

     

Risk as a pattern over time: Delineation of time-dependent risk factors in biological,psychological, and social variables in cancer patients

Background

Survival in cancer patients is associated with a multitude of biological, social, and psychological factors. Although it is well established that all these factors add to overall mortality, it is not well understood how the predictive power of these parameters changes in a comprehensive model and over time.

Methods

Patients who attended the authors’ outpatient clinic were invited to participate. The authors followed 5180 mixed cancer patients (51.1% female; mean age, 59.1 years [SD = 13.8]) for up to 16 years and analyzed biological (age, sex, cancer site, anemia), psychological (anxiety, depression), and social variables (marital status, education, employment status) potentially predicting overall survival in a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The median survival time for the entire sample was 4.3 years (95% confidence interval, 4.0–4.7). The overall survival probabilities for 1 and 10 years were 76.8% and 38.0%, respectively. Following an empirical approach, the authors split the time interval into five periods: acute, subacute, short-term, medium-term, and long-term. A complex pattern of variables predicted overall survival differently in the five periods. Biological parameters were important throughout most of the time, social parameters were either time-independent predictors or tended to be more important in the longer term. Of the psychological parameters, only depression was a significant predictor and lost its predictive power in the long-term.

Conclusions

The findings of this study allow the development of comprehensive patient-specific models of risk and resilience factors addressing biopsychosocial needs of cancer patients, paving the way for a personalized treatment plan that goes beyond biomedical cancer care.