人工肝治疗老年慢性重型肝炎的疗效研究

目的探讨人工肝治疗老年慢性重型肝炎的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析本院住院老年慢性重型肝炎患者共104例，根据是否采用人工肝治疗分成治疗组及对照组，观察血浆置换治疗前后肝功能、凝血功能、肾功能指标，评价两组的存活率、住院时间及存活时间。结果经血浆置换治疗后肝功能、凝血功能较治疗前明显好转（P〈0.05）。治疗组近期存活率（41．67％）高于对照组（17．24％）。早期接受人工肝治疗者远期存活率（66．67％）高于对照组（27．78％），中期（22．2％）和晚期（O）治疗者远期存活率与对照组（5．56％）之间差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。治疗组远期存活者住院天数明显少于对照组，治疗组死亡者生存天数长于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论人工肝治疗可提高老年重型肝炎患者的近期存活率，延长患者生命，缩短病程。     

非生物人工肝联合肝移植治疗中晚期慢性重型肝炎

目的评价非生物人工肝支持系统（ALSS）联合肝移植治疗巾晚期慢性重型肝炎的临床应用价值。方法采用ALSS联合肝移植治疗28例中晚期慢性重型肝炎患者，观察治疗前后各项临床指标的变化与疗效，并就治疗后生存率与同期内科治疗组99例患者、内科联合ALSS治疗组30例患者比较。数据行t和x^2检验。结果28例患者共成功进行57次ALSS治疗，TBil、PT、胆汁酸、BUN、Cr、血氨等指标明显好转（P〈0．05），临床症状改善的中位时间为3d（1～153d）。28例均顺利完成肝移植术，等待到供肝的中位时间为20d（1～153d），术后3、6个月生存率（71．d％，71．4％）显著高于内科治疗组（18．2％，11．1％）和内科联合ALSS治疗组（36．7％，26．6％）（P〈0．01）。结论术前应用非生物人工肝治疗，可有效改善中晚期慢性重型肝炎患者的病情，为顺利过渡到肝移植发挥桥梁支持作用。人工肝联合肝移植是有效治疗中晚期慢性重型肝炎的可靠方法。     

人工肝支持系统（ALSS）治疗重型肝炎的疗效研究

目的观察人工肝支持系统（ALSS：血浆置换PE、血浆灌流PP）治疗重型肝炎的疗效。方法选择重型肝炎患者90例,治疗组46例用人工肝支持系统治疗,对照组44例不用人工肝治疗,两组均常规用药物护肝、对症综合治疗。结果治疗组生存率71．74％（33／46）与对照组生存率47．73％（21／44）比较,经统计学处理有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。结论人工肝支持系统治疗乙型重型肝炎可明显降低病死率,提高生存率,改善预后,值得临床进一步研究。     

选择性血浆置换治疗慢性重型肝炎临床疗效观察

重型肝炎患者病情凶险,进展快,常规的内科综合治疗疗效欠佳,治愈生存率极低.人工肝支持系统（ALSS）是近年发展起来的治疗重型肝炎的主要辅助手段之一,能明显改善肝功能衰竭患者的全身情况,降低患者的病死率,并可成为肝移植的桥梁。ALSS治疗拓宽了肝脏移植在晚期重型肝炎的应用指征要求，和一定程度上提高了患者的生存率。血浆置换是我国应用最多的人工肝治疗方法，     

KM8800型人工肝支持系统对重型肝炎存活率的影响

探讨ＫＭ 880 0型人工肝支持系统对重型肝炎存活率的影响。采用日本Ｋｕｒａｒａｙ公司生产的ＫＭ 880 0型血浆交换仪进行血浆置换和胆红素吸附治疗各型重型肝炎 90例 ,并取 10 4例同期住院的血清总胆红素≥ 4 0 0 μｍｏｌ/Ｌ的各型重型肝炎进行对照分析。结果表明 ,ＫＭ 880 0型人工肝支持系统对各型重型肝炎的早期有明显提高生存率的作用 ,对中期及轻、中度患者也有一定的疗效 ,但对晚期、重型患者无明显提高存活率的作用。ＫＭ 880 0型人工肝应选择各型重型肝炎的早期及轻中度患者 ,而中、晚期及重度患者不应常规应用。KM8800型人工肝…     

重型肝炎的生化指标及治疗方案对患者预后的影响

目的评估重型肝炎的生化指标及治疗方案对患者预后的影响。方法对97例重型肝炎患者，采取回顾性分析方法，对入院首次进行的常规检测项目凝血酶原活动度（PTA）、ALT／AST、血清总胆红素（TBIL）、甲胎蛋白（AFP）进行统计分析。对临床采取治疗手段（内科综合治疗、内科综合治疗加人工肝支持系统治疗）进行对比分析。结果血清总胆红素（TBIL）：3组病死率分别为43．6％、61．3％、81．5％；PTA：3组病死率分别为35．1％、70．6％、100．0％；AFP：3组病死率分别为41．4％、64．8％、78．6％；有、无酶胆分离组病死率分别为79．6％、34．9％；内科治疗组和人工肝治疗组病死率分别为71．2％和42．1％。结论TBIL的高低与病死率呈正相关，PTA、AFP的高低与病死率呈负相关，人工肝支持系统是救治莺型肝炎患者的有效途径。     

非生物人工肝对慢性重型肝炎肝功能支持效果评价

目的评价非生物人工肝支持治疗对慢性重型肝炎患者肝功能的支持效果及安全性。方法253例早、中、晚期慢性重型肝炎患者在综合治疗基础上给予非生物人工肝支持治疗,观察非生物人工肝支持治疗前后患者肝功能、肾功能、凝血酶原活动度（PTA）、血常规及临床症状变化情况。结果253例慢性重型肝炎患者进行非生物人工肝支持治疗后,血清总胆红素（TBIL）及谷丙转氨酶（ALT）下降,PTA上升（P〈0．01）;临床症状明显改善率为9．1％,有效率47．8％,总有效率为56．9％,不良反应轻。治疗后中、晚期慢性重型肝炎的存活率分别为53．1％、10．4％,早期患者存活9例。结论 非生物人工肝支持治疗慢性重型肝炎患者不良反应轻,对肝功能有肯定的支持作用,尤其对早、中期患者支持效果更好。     

人工肝支持系统治疗重型肝炎36例临床疗效分析

目的　研究人工肝支持系统 (ALSS)治疗重型肝炎的临床疗效。方法　对 3 6例重型肝炎患者在内科综合治疗基础上 ,应用人工肝支持系统 (ALSS)进行治疗 ,并检测治疗前后肝功能、胆碱酯酶 (CHE)、凝血酶原活动度 (PTA)、内毒素 (ET)及细胞因子的变化 ,观察治疗相关的不良反应及患者耐受情况 ,比较重型肝炎不同期应用人工肝支持系统的疗效。结果　治疗后患者乏力、腹胀、纳差等症状及肝功能明显改善 ,CHE、PTA显著上升 (P <0 .0 1) ;ET、TNF α、IL 8和sIL 2R明显降低 ,IL 10显著升高 ,IL 2水平无变化。重型肝炎早、中、晚期应用工肝支持系统治疗 ,存活率分别为85 .6%、70 %和 10 % ,人工肝治疗组总体存活率为 5 2 .8% ,显著高于对照组 ( 3 3 .3 % ) ,P <0 .0 1。结论　人工肝支持系统是治疗重型肝炎的有效手段 ,早、中期治疗可取得满意疗效     

人工肝血浆置换术治疗早期重型肝炎疗效观察

应用人工肝血浆置换术治疗早期重型肝炎52例与单一常规内科治疗24例做对比观察。结果显示治疗组存活率显著高于对照组（P〈0．01）。人工肝血浆置换术是早期重型肝炎非常重要的有效治疗方法。     

两种血管通路方法进行血浆置换治疗慢性重型肝炎临床疗效比较

病毒性肝炎乙型慢性重型肝炎（以下简称：慢重肝）病情凶险、进展快速、预后不佳，应用常规的内科综合治疗方法疗效不够理想，人工肝支持系统（ALSS）现在是治疗慢重肝的主要辅助手段之一，血浆置换是国内应用最多的ALSS治疗方法。进行血浆置换的过程中如何建立有效、安全、方便的血管通路是个值得探讨的问题。     

Artificial liver support systems for hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure: A meta-analysis of the clinical literature

To evaluate the short-term and long-term survival efficacy of an artificial liver support system (ALSS) in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). A systematic search was performed for relevant published data in PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Studies that evaluated the efficacy of ALSS in patients with ACLF and provided the short-term or long-term survival rate were included. A total of 10 studies involving 3685 patients were included in this analysis. The pooled 28-day survival rate and 90-day survival rate were 68.7% (95% CI: 64.5%–72.9%) and 53.4% (95% CI: 45.5%–61.4%), respectively. The pooled estimates of the OR for the 28-day and 90-day survival rates between the ALSS group and the control group were 1.91 (95% CI: 1.21–3.04) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.17–1.70), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that patients treated with lower levels of TBIL and MELD scores had a higher 28-day survival rate (χ² = 15.75, p < 0.01; χ² = 13.80, p < 0.01). The present meta-analysis suggests that ALSS treatment could remarkably improve short-term survival rates in HBV-ACLF patients, which implies that treatment with ALSS may help to reduce high mortality. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.     

Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Chemoembolization improves survival

There is no standard treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Survival benefits derived from medical interventions are controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence of the impact of medical treatments on survival. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were published as full papers assessing survival for primary treatments of HCC were included. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CANCERLIT, and a manual search from 1978 to May 2002 were used. The primary end point was survival, and the secondary end point was response to treatment. Estimates of effect were calculated according to the random effects model. Sensitivity analysis included methodological quality. We identified 61 randomized trials, but only 14 met the criteria to perform a meta-analysis assessing arterial embolization (7 trials, 545 patients) or tamoxifen (7 trials, 898 patients). Arterial embolization improved 2-year survival compared with control (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.89; P =.017). Sensitivity analysis showed a significant benefit of chemoembolization with cisplatin or doxorubicin (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88) but none with embolization alone (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29-1.20). Overall, treatment induced objective responses in 35% of patients (range, 16%-61%). Tamoxifen showed no antitumoral effect and no survival benefits (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.36-1.13; P =.13), and only low-quality scale trials suggested 1-year improvement in survival. In conclusion, chemoembolization improves survival of patients with unresectable HCC and may become the standard treatment. Treatment with tamoxifen does not modify the survival of patients with advanced disease.     

人工肝治疗对重型肝病患者生存期的影响

目的通过前瞻性、多中心、大样本的对照研究,探讨人工肝治疗对重型肝病患者生存期的影响。方法前瞻性地选择首都医科大学附属北京佑安医院等5家医院的重型肝炎和慢性肝炎重度(且凝血酶原活动度<50％)患者518例,将患者分为人工肝治疗组和常规内科治疗对照组,记录其诊断、分期等原始资料并进行随访,采用Kaplain-Maier方法进行生存情况分析。结果急性重型肝炎患者人工肝治疗组的中位生存期为(8．0±0．4)d,内科治疗对照组为(4．0±0．2)d,P=0．004。人工肝治疗2次以上疗效更加明显,它可使慢眭重型肝炎患者生存期由(27．0±1．6)d延长至(39．0±4．0)d,重型肝炎中期患者生存期由(38．0±17．5)d延长至(66．0±18．6)d;晚期患者生存期由(18．0±4．0)d延长至(26．0±2．5)d,差异均有统计学意义。结论人工肝治疗能够延长急性重型肝炎患者、慢性及亚急性重型肝炎中晚期患者的生存时间,多次治疗效果显著优于单次治疗和内科治疗。     

Treatment of fibromyalgia with cyclobenzaprine: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of cyclobenzaprine in the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: Articles describing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of cyclobenzaprine in people with fibromyalgia were obtained from Medline, EMBase, Psyclit, the Cochrane Library, and Federal Research in Progress Database. Unpublished literature and bibliographies were also reviewed. Outcomes, including global improvement, treatment effects on pain, fatigue, sleep, and tender points over time, were abstracted. RESULTS: Five randomized, placebo-controlled trials were identified. The odds ratio for global improvement with therapy was 3.0 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.6-5.6) with a pooled risk difference of 0.21 (95% CI 0.09-0.34), which calculates to 4.8 (95% CI 3.0-11) individuals needing treatment for 1 patient to experience symptom improvement. Pain improved early on, but there was no improvement in fatigue or tender points at any time. CONCLUSION: Cyclobenzaprine-treated patients were 3 times as likely to report overall improvement and to report moderate reductions in individual symptoms, particularly sleep.     

人工肝支持系统对肝衰竭患者血清超敏C反应蛋白水平的影响

目的通过观察人工肝支持系统对肝衰竭患者血清超敏C反应蛋白(hs-CRP)水平的影响,探讨hs-CRP水平改变对肝衰竭临床转归的影响。方法选取2011年11月-2013年12月在武汉市第七医院住院的患者134例,分为3组。分别测定经人工肝支持系统治疗的肝衰竭患者(n=60)及未行人工肝支持系统治疗的肝衰竭患者(n=37)治疗前后以及慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)患者(n=37)血清hs-CRP水平,并对结果进行统计分析。计量资料组间比较采用t检验,计数资料采用卡方检验。结果 3组患者治疗前均检测了hs-CRP的水平分别为(12.89±9.39)、(12.22±9.73)、(2.83±6.79)mg/L。人工肝治疗组与未行人工肝治疗组比较,差异无统计学意义(P值均0.05);肝衰竭两组与CHB组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P值均0.001)。人工肝治疗组临床好转率为78.33%,与未行人工肝治疗组临床好转率54.05%相比,差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.315,P0.05);人工肝治疗有效组患者治疗后血清hs-CRP明显下降(t=5.344,P=0.000),与人工肝治疗无效组治疗后相比,差异有统计学意义(t=2.368,P=0.038)。结论人工肝支持系统治疗能降低肝衰竭患者血清hs-CRP的水平,观察hs-CRP水平的变化对病情的进展及人工肝的疗效有很好的指导作用。     

人工肝支持系统治疗重型肝炎应用研究

目的　为进一步探索人工肝支持系统（ＡＬＳＳ） 治疗重型肝炎临床应用疗效,并研究其机制。方法　对８８ 例重型肝炎患者应用ＡＬＳＳ 治疗,并检测治疗前、后肝功能,内毒素含量等,并对部分患者检测血清乙型肝炎病毒（ＨＢＶ） 含量、氨基酸谱等。比较重型肝炎不同期应用ＡＬＳＳ治疗效果。结果　ＡＬＳＳ治疗后,重型肝炎患者肝功能明显改善,血内毒素由治疗前（６２ ．４１ ±２８ ．１８）ｎｇ／Ｌ降至治疗后（４３ ．５６ ±２２ ．１５）ｎｇ／Ｌ（ Ｐ＜ ０ ．００１） ,ＨＢＶ 量由（２ ５８８ ±１ ５３４）ｃｏｐｉｅｓ／ｍｌ 降至（１ ８１５ ±６２０）ｃｏｐｉｅｓ／ｍｌ（ Ｐ＜ ０ ．０５） 。蛋氨酸和芳香族氨基酸浓度下降,ＢＣＡＡ／ＡＡＡ 比值由１ ．１８ 上升至１ ．５２（ Ｐ＜ ０ ．０５） 。早、中、晚期重型肝炎应用ＡＬＳＳ治疗治愈好转率分别为９０ ．９ ％ 、７１ ．０ ％ 、２０ ．５ ％ 。结论　ＡＬＳＳ治疗重型肝炎疗效可靠,在早、中期治疗最为适宜。     

Treatment of fibromyalgia with cyclobenzaprine: A meta‐analysis

Objective

To systematically review the effectiveness of cyclobenzaprine in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

Methods

Articles describing randomized, placebo‐controlled trials of cyclobenzaprine in people with fibromyalgia were obtained from Medline, EMBase, Psyclit, the Cochrane Library, and Federal Research in Progress Database. Unpublished literature and bibliographies were also reviewed. Outcomes, including global improvement, treatment effects on pain, fatigue, sleep, and tender points over time, were abstracted.

Results

Five randomized, placebo‐controlled trials were identified. The odds ratio for global improvement with therapy was 3.0 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.6–5.6) with a pooled risk difference of 0.21 (95% CI 0.09–0.34), which calculates to 4.8 (95% CI 3.0–11) individuals needing treatment for 1 patient to experience symptom improvement. Pain improved early on, but there was no improvement in fatigue or tender points at any time.

Conclusion

Cyclobenzaprine‐treated patients were 3 times as likely to report overall improvement and to report moderate reductions in individual symptoms, particularly sleep.

     

Selection factors for the use of thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: a population based study of current practice in the United Kingdom. The European Secondary Prevention Study Group.

OBJECTIVES--To identify and rank the factors that currently limit the use of thrombolytic treatment in patients admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Weighted sampling study with retrospective data retrieval from clinical records. SETTING--All hospitals within the Trent region providing acute general medical services. PATIENTS--Random sample of 420 patients admitted during February-April 1993 who had acute myocardial infarction as the main discharge diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Treatment odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals (CI)) for the use of thrombolysis in patient groups defined by relevant clinical characteristics. RESULTS--The patient population was older and less likely to have ST segment elevation on the initial electrocardiogram than patients entered into the randomised trials of thrombolysis. Thrombolytic treatment was given to 49% of patients (SE 2.4%). After controlling for negative associations with a history of stroke (treatment odds ratio 0.18 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.53)) and peptic ulcer (odds ratio 0.52 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.01)) use of thrombolysis decreased with increasing patient age. This was particularly noticeable for those aged > 74 years (odds ratio 0.17 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.51)) relative to those aged < 65 years. Thrombolysis was less likely to be used in patients with ST depression (odds ratio 0.22 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.41)) or bundle branch block (odds ratio 0.18 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.44)) than in those with ST elevation on the initial electrocardiogram. Delay from symptom onset to admission was more than 12 h in 15% of patients. CONCLUSIONS--The patient population admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction differs in several respects from the samples that have been included in the trials of thrombolysis. The main factors limiting wider use of thrombolysis are diagnostic uncertainty at admission and delayed presentation. Perceived clinical contraindications to treatment are of lesser importance. There is evident reluctance to use thrombolytic treatment in older patients, who were substantially under-represented in the clinical trials.     

Rifaximin vs. conventional oral therapy for hepatic encephalopathy: a meta-analysis

AIM: To characterize the efficacy of rifaximin in the management of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) as several randomized controlled studies have shown contradictory results on its effectiveness in comparison to other oral agents.METHODS: We performed a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of all eligible trials identified through electronic and manual searches. Twelve randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria with a total of 565 patients.RESULTS: The clinical effectiveness of rifaximin was equivalent to disaccharides or other oral antibiotics [odds ratio (OR) 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-4.08] but with a better safety profile (OR 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12-0.59). At the completion of treatment protocols, patients receiving rifaximin showed lower serum ammonia levels [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -10.65; 95% CI: -23.4-2.1; P = 0.10], better mental status (WMD = -0.24; 95% CI: -0.57-0.08; P = 0.15) and less asterixis (WMD -0.1; 95% CI -0.26-0.07; P = 0.25) without reaching statistical significance. On the other hand, other psychometric outcomes such as electroencephalographic response and grades of portosystemic encephalopathy were superior in patients treated with rifaximin in comparison to the control group (WMD = 0.21, 95% CI: -0.33-0.09, P = 0.0004; and WMD = -2.33, 95% CI: -2.68-1.98, P = 0.00001, respectively). Subgroup and sensitivity analysis did not show any significant difference in the above findings.CONCLUSION: Rifaximin appears to be at least as effective as other conventional oral agents for the treatment of HE with a better safety profile.     

Identification of prognostic factors for plerixafor-based hematopoietic stem cell mobilization

The introduction of plerixafor has enabled successful collection of stem cells in the majority of patients with lymphoma or myeloma in whom previous attempts at mobilization have failed. However, a proportion of patients have been shown to be resistant to this mobilization regimen. To identify the factors that impair stem cell mobilization and collection with plerixafor, we reviewed the data for 197 patients who had undergone mobilization with plerixafor and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in Central Europe. Predictors of mobilization failure were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Among the 197 patients mobilized, the target of ≥2.0 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was collected from 133 (67.5%). Our analysis revealed that previous treatment with lenalidomide, bortezomib, melphalan, radiotherapy, or autologous stem cell transplantation and regimen of plerixafor use in combination with chemotherapy had no significant effect on the efficiency of collection. In contrast, an age ≥65 years (odds ratio 0.331, 95% CI: 0.112-0.977, P < 0.05), a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (odds ratio 0.277, 95% CI: 0.124-0.622, P < 0.01), and treatment with ≥ four chemotherapy regimens (odds ratio 0.366, 95% CI: 0.167-0.799, P < 0.05) were associated significantly with failed mobilization. The rate of successful mobilizations was decreased in patients treated with purine analogues (odds ratio 0.323, 95% CI: 0.096-1.094, P = 0.07) but increased in female patients (odds ratio 1.961, CI: 0.943-4.080, P = 0.07). Patients who are characterized by the above negative features could benefit potentially from further improvement in the mobilization strategy.