【摘要】 目的 探討介入治療股骨頭無菌性壞死（ANFH）的療效。 方法 納入1996-2009年間確診的ANFH患者15例，采用經外周動脈穿刺插管的方法，經血管造影明確供血血管的位置，經導管向其內灌注擴張血管藥、舒筋活血中藥和溶栓藥物，以改善股骨頭供血狀況；并追蹤隨訪1~3年，根據楊白明評定標準從疼痛、功能、X線片3個方面進行判定，觀察其臨床癥狀的改善。 結果 Ⅰ~Ⅲ期ANFH患者的臨床癥狀減輕，甚至消失；痊愈50%，顯效25%，有效15%。 結論 介入治療Ⅰ~Ⅲ期ANFH的療效顯著。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the curative effects of interventional therapy in aseptic necrosis of the femoral head (ANFH). Methods Fifteen patients with ANFH diagnosed from 1996 to 2009 were respectively analyzed. With peripheral arterial puncture methods from peripheral artery, the feeding artery was clarified by using angiography and infused the angiectasia agent, traditional Chinese medicine which could distend blood vessel and thrombolysin to improve blood supply of femoral head. All patients were followed up for one to three years to observe improvement of clinical symptoms. Results Clinical symptom of ANFH in stage Ⅰ-Ⅲ were alleviated or even disappeared, among whom 50% were removed, 25% were markedly effective, and 15% were effective. Conclusion Interventional therapy has significant curative effect in treating ANFH, especially for stage Ⅰ-Ⅲ.
目的 探討腦出血患者病死率與發病早期不同血壓水平的關系。 方法 選擇2006年2月－2012年6月在我院住院、符合入選標準及排除標準的患者120例, 經頭顱CT證實為基底節區腦出血，血腫體積20～40 mL，收縮壓＜200 mm Hg（1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa），舒張壓＜110 mm Hg。 按照中國高血壓分級標準（1級高血壓：收縮壓140～159 mm Hg或舒張壓90～99 mm Hg；2級高血壓：收縮壓160～179 mm Hg或舒張壓100～109 mm Hg；3級高血壓：收縮壓≥180 mm Hg或舒張壓≥110 mm Hg）將患者分組，各組采用降顱內壓、營養神經、維持水電解質平衡、對癥治療及康復治療和康復護理等常規治療，觀察2周內各組病死率。 結果 1級高血壓組與2級高血壓組2周內病死率比較，差異無統計學意義（χ2=0.075，P=0.785）；1級高血壓組與3級高血壓組2周內病死率比較，差異有統計學意義（χ2=5.698，P=0.017）；2級高血壓組與3級高血壓組2周內病死率比較，差異有統計學意義（χ2=4.528，P=0.033）。 結論 對于早期血壓較高的腦出血患者，進行積極的降壓治療，將血壓控制在2級高血壓水平，可以明顯降低病死率。
In order to meet the requirements in the cooperation and competition experiments for an individual patient in clinical application, two human interactive behavior key-press models based on hidden Markov model (HMM) were proposed. To validate the cooperative and competitive models, a verification experimental task was designed and the data were collected. The correlation of the score and subjects’ participation level has been used to analyze the reasonability verification. Behavior verification was conducted by comparing the statistical difference in response time for subjects between human-human and human-computer experiment. In order to verify the physiological validity of the models, we have utilized the coherence analysis to analyze the deep information of prefrontal brain area. Reasonability verification shows that the correlation coefficient for the training data and the testing data is 0.883 1 and 0.578 6 respectively based on cooperation model, and 0.813 1 and 0.617 8 respectively based on the competition model. The behavioral verification result shows that the cooperation and competition models have an accuracy of 71.43% respectively. The results of physiological validity show that the deep information of prefrontal brain area could been extracted based on the cooperation and competition models, and reveal the consistency of coherence between the double key-press cooperative and competitive experiments, respectively. Above all, the high consistency is obtained between the cooperatio/competition model and the double key-press experiment by the behavioral and physiological evaluation results. Consequently, the cooperation and competition models could be applied to clinical trials.
Objective While reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) and adverse drug events (AE) following Chinese medicine injection (CMI) is becoming more common, the reporting quality is of concern. Methods A checklist about the reporting quality of ADR/AE was set up, and the ADR/AE reporting of Herba Houttuyniae injection was chosen as an example. Electronic databases Chinese Journal Net (CJN) (1994-2009) and Chinese Science and Technological Journal Net (VIP) (1989-2009) were searched for target literature. Results Based on our search strategy, 210 articles were included, with 175 articles reporting single or several cases of ADR/AE following Herba Houttuyniae injection (type I report). There were 7 reports from regional or national ADR monitoring centers (type II report), and 28 summary reports from a single hospital or medical center (type III report). All 210 papers mentioned ‘adverse effect,’ ‘safety’ or related meaning words in their titles, but 199 articles did not have abstract. Patient demographic characteristics were not fully reported in these articles. In type I articles, only 97 cases (43.11%) mentioned whether patients had or did not have a history of allergies, while 128 cases (56.89%) in Type II papers and Fourteen (50%) type III papers, did not mention allergic history of patients. Only three articles (3/210, 1.43%), all of them type I, mentioned the syndrome type in Chinese medicine. None of the papers gave clear indications of the type and grade of ADR/AE of patients. Most papers did not report details of the CMI procedure, such as the drug company, product serial number, or the drug’s validity period. Data about the occurrence time and management of ADR/AE was also inadequately reported. Conclusion and recommendations The current reporting format of ADR/AE in clinical CMIs is not standardized. Much fundamental information of ADR/AE following CMI is therefore missing. A standard reporting format for ADR should be developed, and should include the following: 1) a title mentioning adverse effects and safety; 2) a structured abstract including adequate information about the patient and the disease treated, the drug used, the specific ADR/AE, physician response to the ADR/AE, and result of management; 3) demographic characteristic of the patients (gender, age, etc.); 4) clinical characteristics of patients (disease, syndrome, etc); 5) allergic history of patients; 6) diagnosis and syndrome based on Chinese medicine theory; 7) detailed information about the Chinese materia medica intervention (the manufacturer of the drug, series number, valid dates, dosage, route of administration, menstruum, dripping speed, etc.); 8) concomitant drug use; 9) time and symptoms of ADR/AE; 10) type and grading of ADR/AE; 11) physiological systems affected by ADR/AE; 12) specific treatment and prognosis for ADR/AE; 13) evidence of the cause and effect of ADR/AE; 14) any other possibility of ADR/AE. Also, a ADR/AE registration system should be established.
