术前给药联合腹腔镜手术治疗未破裂型异位妊娠的临床效果研究

目的：探究术前给药联合腹腔镜手术治疗未破裂型异位妊娠的临床效果。方法选取未破裂型异位妊娠患者200例，依据治疗方法不同，分为A组、B组、C组和D组，各50例,A组采用腹腔镜保守性手术治疗，B组术前肌肉注射甲氨蝶呤，C组术前口服米非司酮，D组术前给予肌注甲氨蝶呤及口服米非司酮。比较观察4组的手术时间、术中出血量、血HCG水平检测、术后2年内宫内妊娠率、不孕率及异位妊娠再发率情况。结果与A组相比， B、C、D组的手术时间和术中出血量有所减少，其中D组显著减少，B、C 2组比较差异无统计学意义，4组术后血HCG水平恢复至正常水平时间差异无统计学意义；D组患者术后2年内宫内妊娠率、不孕率及异位妊娠再发率情况明显优于A、B、C 3组，以上比较差异均具有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。结论术前给药联合腹腔镜手术治疗未破裂型异位妊娠，可缩短手术时间，减少术中出血量，给患者生育力带来的影响小，具有显著疗效，值得临床推广和应用。     

子宫内膜异位症患者行体外受精-胚胎移植结局分析

目的分析子宫内膜异位症(EMs)不同严重程度和不同降调节方案对体外受精-胚胎移植(IVF-ET)的临床结局的影响。方法回顾性分析本中心2010年1月至2013年12月行IVF-ET的患者。在选定长方案为分析对象中,1 822例输卵管因素患者,239例EMs,包括219例Ⅰ~Ⅱ期,20例Ⅲ~Ⅳ期,分析各组间受精率、卵裂率、胚胎着床率、临床妊娠率、流产率及异位妊娠率的差异。另外,进一步分析Ⅲ~Ⅳ期组中不同降调节方案的IVF-ET结局,其中包括38个长方案周期,119个超长方案周期,29个短方案及拮抗剂方案。结果Ⅲ~Ⅳ期EMs组的促性腺激素(Gn)总量比Ⅰ~Ⅱ期及输卵管组均高,而获卵数、受精率、优质胚胎数明显低于其他组(P0.05);但三组的着床率、临床妊娠率、流产率及异位孕率比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。在Ⅲ~Ⅳ期EMs组中,行短方案及拮抗剂方案组的Gn总量显著低于长方案及超长方案组,且获卵数显著低于其他组(P0.05);三组的优质胚胎率、着床率、临床妊娠率、流产率、异位妊娠率均无统计学差异(P0.05),但超长方案的着床率、临床妊娠率较其他两组有升高趋势。结论不同严重程度的EMs患者行IVF-ET可获得和输卵管因素患者相同的成功率;超长方案对于Ⅲ~Ⅳ期EMs的胚胎质量无明显改善,但有提高胚胎着床率及临床妊娠率的趋势。     

不同手术方式治疗终止剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠的临床价值研究

目的探讨剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠采用子宫切除术和子宫病灶切除术治疗的临床价值。方法回顾性收集该院2016年1月至2018年2月收治的终止剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠患者94例,按治疗方式不同分为试验组和对照组。试验组52例采用子宫病灶切除术治疗,对照组42例采用子宫切除术治疗,比较两组围术期指标、临床结局、并发症发生率。结果试验组妊娠包块直径(60.35±20.14) mm、终止妊娠时孕周(9.25±1.28)周、出血量(416.35±19.84) ml较对照组[(90.26±24.15) mm、(12.26±2.01)周、(502.36±20.14) ml]低,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05);试验组子宫瘢痕妊娠危急状态发生率为7.69%、输血率为11.54%、并发症发生率为5.77%,较对照组(30.95%、33.33%、21.43%)低,差异有统计学意义(P 0.05)。结论对于妊娠包块直径在60～85 mm、孕周在9～11周剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠患者采用子宫病灶切除术治疗效果确切,可降低并发症发生率,改善临床结局;而对于孕周超过11周且妊娠包块直径较大者建议采用子宫切除术治疗。     

实时聚合酶链反应与细菌培养在妊娠晚期孕妇B族链球菌感染诊断中应用价值

目的探讨妊娠晚期孕妇B族链球菌感染(GBS)诊断中实时聚合酶链式反应(PCR)与细菌培养的应用价值。方法回顾性分析2016年10月至2018年9月于我院行产前检查的520例妊娠晚期孕妇临床资料,采用细菌培养与实时PCR技术进行GBS检测,以实时PCR法联合细菌培养判定结果为"金标准",比较2种检测结果及诊断效能。结果 520例妊娠晚期孕妇中,经PCR法或细菌培养判定最终确诊GBS感染者41例,阳性率为7.9%(41/520);细菌培养确诊GBS感染者12例,阳性检出率为2.3%(12/520),实时PCR法确诊GBS感染者39例,阳性检出率为7.5%(39/520),细菌培养与PCR法阳性检出率相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);实时PCR法诊断敏感度、特异度及准确性均高于细菌培养法,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与细菌培养相比,实时PCR法在妊娠晚期孕妇GBS感染诊断中具有更高的应用价值,利于为临床干预治疗提供有力依据。     

布地奈德合BiPAP治疗老年支气管哮喘并呼吸衰竭疗效观察

目的:探讨布地奈德联合双水平呼吸道正压通气(BiPAP)治疗老年支气管哮喘合并呼吸衰竭患者的疗效。方法:选取我院2016年10月～2018年9月收治的老年支气管哮喘合并呼吸衰竭患者74例,按照随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组,每组37例。对照组采用BiPAP治疗,观察组采用BiPAP+布地奈德治疗,观察比较两组临床疗效,治疗前后肺功能及血气分析各指标变化情况。结果:观察组治疗总有效率94.59%(35/37),高于对照组的75.68%(28/37)(P0.05);治疗后观察组最大呼吸峰值(PEF)、用力肺活量(FVC)、第1秒用力呼气容积率(FEV1%)水平高于对照组(P0.05);治疗后观察组动脉血二氧化碳分压(Pa CO2)低于对照组,动脉血氧分压(Pa O2)高于对照组(P0.05)。结论:布地奈德联合BiPAP治疗老年支气管哮喘合并呼吸衰竭患者可改善患者血气分析指标水平,促进患者肺功能恢复,效果显著。     

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.