大剂量干扰素辅助治疗口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤的效果及安全性研究

目的 研究大剂量干扰素辅助治疗口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤的临床效果,探讨治疗应用的安全性。方法 选取我院于2017年11月～2018年11月收治的80例口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤患者作为研究对象,按照治疗方法不同分为两组,每组40例。对照组患者仅采用单纯手术治疗,治疗组在此基础上采用大剂量干扰素辅助治疗。观察两组患者生存情况、疾病复发情况以及毒副反应。结果 治疗组患者生存期限及无复发生存期明显长于对照组,治疗组复发率为5.00%,明显低于对照组的22.50%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者毒副反应比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤患者予以大剂量干扰素辅助疗法安全有效,值得临床推广。     

个体化健康教育对糖尿病抑郁症运动依从性影响

目的研究糖尿病并发抑郁症患者运动依从性的影响因素,探讨有效的干预措施。方法选择2018年11月-2019年8月天津市公安医院收治的糖尿病患者158例为研究对象,根据抑郁自评量表(CES-D)调查情况分为糖尿病抑郁(DDM)组和糖尿病非抑郁(NDDM)组各79例,采用问卷的形式分析个体化健康教育指导前后患者运动依从性影响因素。结果 NDDM组患者运动依从性量表评分为(78.4±3.3)分,高于DDM组的(52.7±4.1)分;重度抑郁患者较轻度抑郁患者运动治疗依从性明显降低;两组患者个体化健康教育后运动依从性量表评分较教育前均提高,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。不同运动依从性的糖尿病患者性别、婚姻状况、文化程度、家庭支持、医患关系、并发症数量、住院次数、BMI、HbA1c比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论抑郁症对糖尿病患者的运动依从性有明显影响,且抑郁程度越重运动依从性越差。个体化健康教育能有效改善糖尿病并发抑郁症患者的运动依从性,值得临床进一步研究。     

断指再植手术对手指钝性离断伤的治疗效果研究

目的：探析手指钝性离断伤采用断指再植手术治疗的临床效果。方法整群选择2013年6月—2014年6月期间该院收治的手指钝性离断伤患者59例为研究对象，对其临床治疗资料进行回顾性分析。结果该组的59例患者中，术后断指再成活54例，占91.53%，5例失败，占8.47%，其中手指远端坏死3例，占5.08%，2例术后感染，占3.39%。结论临床上给予手指钝性离断伤患者断指再植手术治疗，可以获得较好的效果，有助于恢复患者的手指功能。     

Measuring the appropriateness of carbamazepine and valproic acid prescribing and utilization using a newly implemented online system in the Tabuk Region of Saudi Arabia

Epilepsy is a common neurologic disorder, which is efficiently treated with carbamazepine and valproic acid. Moreover, Saudi Ministry of Health implemented a new E-system for Poison Control Centers called Awtar to enhance technology utilization in ensuring patients’ satisfaction and to improve treatment outcomes. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess appropriateness of indication of requests and therapeutic levels of carbamazepine and valproic acid in Tabuk area, North West Saudi Arabia. This is a retrospective observational study conducted in Poison Control & Forensic Chemistry Center, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. Patients’ data were obtained for years 2018 and 2019. The blood levels of carbamazepine and valproic acid were measured by Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) Unit. We selected patients treated with either valproic acid or carbamazepine alone without any history of drug allergy. Data of 264 patients were extracted from Awtar E-system. Serum carbamazepine levels were within therapeutic range in 114 patients (75.50%), above-therapeutic range in 13 patients (8.61%) and sub-therapeutic levels in 24 patients (15.89%). Regarding serum valproic acid, it is within therapeutic range in 62 patients (54.87%), above-therapeutic range in 11 patients (9.73%) and sub-therapeutic levels in 40 patients (35.40%). In conclusion, this study gives information about partial appropriateness of usage of carbamazepine and low level of appropriateness of valproic acid. However, more efforts are needed to improve results of appropriateness of indication of antiepileptic drugs.     

Factors affecting compliance to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in Indian patients with retinal vein occlusion,age-related macular degeneration,and diabetic macular edema

Purpose:To evaluate the rate of compliance and the reasons for loss to follow-up in Indian patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) being treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy.Methods:This was a retrospective single-center study. Patients with DME, AMD, or RVO were eligible if they initiated anti-VEGF therapy between January 2013 and December 2017. Patients'' data were obtained from hospital electronic records, including the number of injections received, visits, details of follow-up, missed appointments, and reasons for loss to follow-up (>365 days).Results:A total of 648 patients were eligible for the study, of which 334 (51.54%) patients were lost to follow-up. Overall, 343 (64.96%) were males and the overall mean (SD) age was 66.40 (7.44) years. A total of 376 (58.0%) patients had a history of diabetes and 364 (56.2%) patients had a history of hypertension. Further, 127 (38.0), 112 (33.5), and 95 (28.4) had DME, AMD, and RVO, respectively and were lost to follow-up. The most commonly reported reason for loss to follow-up was “non-affordability” (n = 120; 41.1%) followed by “no improvement in vision” (n = 83; 28.4%). “No improvement in vision” (42.2%) and “non-affordability” (37.5%) were higher among patients with DME. No association was found in gender- and treatment-wise distribution of reasons for loss to follow-up.Conclusion:The results showed that around half of the patients with DME, AMD, and RVO were lost to follow-up to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy, and the most common factors were “non-affordability” and “no improvement in vision.”     

Reduced nontarget embolization and increased targeted delivery with a reflux-control microcatheter in a swine model

PurposeTo evaluate the potential differences in non-target embolization and vessel microsphere filling of a reflux-control microcatheter (RCM) compared to a standard end-hole microcatheter (SEHM) in a swine model.Materials and methodsRadiopaque microspheres were injected with both RCM and SEHM (2.4-Fr and 2.7-Fr) in the kidneys of a preclinical swine model. Transarterial renal embolization procedures with RCM or SEHM were performed in both kidneys of 14 pigs. Renal arteries were selectively embolized with an automated injection protocol of radio-opaque microspheres. Ex-vivo X-ray microtomography images of the kidneys were utilized to evaluate the embolization by quantification of the deposition of injected microspheres in the target vs. the non-target area of injection. X-ray microtomography images were blindly analyzed by five interventional radiologists. The degree of vessel filling and the non-target embolization were quantified using a scale from 1 to 5 for each parameter. An analysis of variance was used to compare the paired scores.ResultsTotal volumes of radio-opaque microspheres injected were similar for RCM (11.5 ± 3.6 [SD] mL; range: 6–17 mL) and SEHM (10.6 ± 5.2 [SD] mL; range: 4–19 mL) (P = 0.38). The voxels enhanced ratio in the target (T) vs. non-target (NT) areas was greater with RCM (T = 98.3% vs. NT = 1.7%) than with SEHM (T = 89% vs. NT = 11%) but the difference was not significant (P = 0.30). The total score blindly given by the five interventional radiologists was significantly different between RCM (12.3 ± 2.1 [SD]; range: 6–15) and the standard catheter (11.3 ± 2.5 [SD]; range: 4–15) (P = 0.0073), with a significant decrease of non-target embolization for RCM (3.8 ± 1.3 [SD]; range: 3.5–4.2) compared to SEHM (3.2 ± 1.5 [SD]; range: 2.9–3.5) (P = 0.014).ConclusionIn an animal model, RCM microcatheters reduce the risk of non-target embolization from 11% to 1.7%, increasing the delivery of microspheres of 98% to the target vessels, compared to SEHM microcatheters.