ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). MethodsThe clinical data of 496 patients with DVT who were treated in our hospital from January 2010 to October 2014 were analyzed retrospectively, to compare the time of venous pressure decreased to normal (T1) and time of circumference difference decreased to normal (T2) in patients received pure therapy (control group) and pure therapy combined with IPC (combination group), according to different types of patients in acute, sub-acute, and chronic phase. In addition, comparison of the remission rate of pulmonary embolism (PE), incidence of PE, and recurrence of DVT was performed between the control group and combination group too. Results① For DVT patients in acute stage, the time of T1 and T2 of patients in central type, peripheral type, and mixed type who received anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis/catheter thrombolysis+IPC, were significantly shorter than those patients who received only anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis/catheter thrombolysis (P<0.05). For DVT patients in sub-acute stage, the time of T1 and T2 of patients in central type and mixed type who received anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis+IPC, were significantly shorter than those of patients who received only anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis (P<0.05), the time of T1 of patients in peripheral type who received anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis+IPC, were significantly shorter than those of patients who received only anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis (P<0.01), but the time of T2 of patients in peripheral type didn't differed between patients who received only anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis and anticoagulant therapy/systemic thrombolysis +IPC (P>0.05). For DVT patients in chronic stage, the time of T1 and T2 of patients in central type and mixed type didn't differed between patients who received only anticoagulant therapy and anticoagulant therapy +IPC (P>0.05); the time of T1 of patients in peripheral type who received anticoagulant therapy+IPC, were significantly shorter than those of patients who received only anticoagulant therapy (P<0.05), but the time of T2 didn't differed with each other (P>0.05). ② There were 63 patients in control group and 47 patients in combination group had PE before treatment. After the treatment, the PE symptom of control group relieved in 56 patients (88.89%, 56/63) and maintained in 7 patients (11.11%, 7/63), the symptom of combination group relieved in 44 patients (93.62%, 44/47) and maintained in 3 patients (6.38%, 3/47), so the remission rate of PE symptom in combination group was higher (P<0.05). There were 6 patients suffered from new PE in control group[4.26% (6/141)] and 0 in combination group[0 (0/245)] after treatment in patients who hadn't PE before treatment, and the incidence of PE was lower in combination group (P<0.05). ③ There were 325 patients were followed up for 3-36 months with the median time of 27 months, including 157 patents in control group and 168 patients in combination group. During the follow-up period, 74 patients recurred[47.13% (74/157)] in control group and 46 patients recurred[27.38% (46/168)] in combination group, and the recurrence rate was lower in combination group (P<0.05). In addition, 41 patients suffered from post-thrombotic syndrome[26.11% (41/157)] in control group and 27 patients[16.07% (27/168)] in combination group, and the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome was lower in combination group (P<0.05). ConclusionsIPC can significantly shorten the time of venous pressure and the circumference difference decreased to normal for DVT patients in acute stage and majority DVT patients in sub-acute stage, and it can relieve the clinical symptoms of PE, reduce the incidence rate of PE and recurrence rate of DVT. Therefore, IPC is a safe, reliable, and effective treatment for DVT patients in acute stage and majority DVT patients in sub-acute stage.
ObjectiveTo explore risk factors associated with mortality and restenosis after the surgery for congenital pulmonary venous stenosis (CPVS) combined with congenital heart disease.MethodsFrom May 2007 to August 2019, 58 patients received surgical relief of CPVS combined with congenital heart disease, including 24 males and 34 females, aged 17.2±26.3 months, weighing 8.8±8.2 kg. Endpoints were death and restenosis, and the risk factors were analyzed. A univariate and multivariate risk analyses were performed.ResultsPreoperative pulmonary venous stenosis severity score (PVSSS) was 4.5±2.7. Average pulmonary vein counts with CPVS was 1.9±1.0. There were 2 (3.4%) early deaths. The mean follow-up time was 2-145 (49.8±40.0) months. The 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 86.7%, 81.3%, 78.5% and 73.6%, respectively, and the pulmonary venous restenosis-free rates were 79.6%, 68.5%, 68.5% and 68.5%, respectively. Preterm birth was an independent risk factor for mortality. The pulmonary venous peak flow rate ≥1.2 m/s at discharge was an independent risk factor for mortality and restenosis.ConclusionThe prognosis of CPVS is still poor. Postoperative residual stenosis at discharge is an independent risk factor for death and restenosis.
目的 探讨姑息性右室-肺动脉连接术在重症紫绀型先天性心脏病治疗中的临床应用。 方法 回顾性分析郑州市第七人民医院心脏外科 2011 年 1 月至 2015 年 1 月期间所有行姑息性右室-肺动脉连接术治疗的重症紫绀型先天性心脏病患者 25 例的临床资料，其中男 17 例、女 8 例，年龄 31（5～108）个月，体重 3.5～37.2（12.82±6.73）kg。 结果 25 例姑息性右室-肺动脉连接术后早期死亡 2 例（术后 30 d 内），早期死亡率 8.0%（2/25）。患者术后动脉血氧饱和度与术前差异有统计学意义（62.43%±7.83%vs. 81.62%±6.25%，P<0.05）。术后随访 6 个月至 3 年（每 3 个月复查一次超声心动图），23 例患者 McGoon 比值（1.05±0.14vs. 1.61±0.18，P<0.05）和 Nakata 指数[（112.37±14.38）mm2/m2 vs. （165.74±22.62） mm2/m2，P<0.05]均明显上升，且差异有统计学意义。17 例患者行二期根治手术治疗。 结论 姑息性右室-肺动脉连接术能够有效促进重症紫绀型先天性心脏病患者的自身肺血管床发育，为行二期根治术创造条件。
Objective To investigative the effects of combination treatment with simvastatin and aspirin in a rat model of monocrotaline-induced pulmonary hypertension. Methods Sixty male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into a control group, a simvastatin group, an aspirin group, and a combination treatment group. The control group received monocrotaline injection subcutaneously to induce pulmonary hypertension. Simvastatin ( 2 mg/kg) , aspirin ( 1 mg/kg) , or simvastatin ( 2 mg/kg) + aspirin ( 1 mg/kg) was administered once daily to the rats of treatment groups respectively for 28 days after monocrotaline injection. Mean pulmonary arterial pressure ( mPAP) was detected by right heart catheter.Right ventricular hypertrophy index ( RVHI) was calculated as the right ventricle to the left ventricle plus septum weight. Histopathology changes of small intrapulmonary arteries were evaluated via image analysissystem. Interleukin-6 ( IL-6) level in lung tissue was determined by ELISA.Results Compared with the control group, simvastatin or aspirin decreased mPAP [ ( 34. 1 ±8. 4) mm Hg, ( 38. 3 ±7. 1) mmHg vs.( 48. 4 ±7. 8) mmHg] and increased arterial wall diameter significantly ( P lt; 0. 05) . The combination treatment group showed more significant improvement in mPAP, RVHI and pulmonary arterial remodeling compared with each monotherapy ( P lt;0. 05) . Moreover, the combination therapy had additive effects on the increases in lung IL-6 levels and the perivascular inflammation score. Conclusions Combination therapy with simvastatin and aspirin is superior in preventing the development of pulmonary hypertension. The additive effect of combination therapy is suggested to be ascribed to anti-inflammation effects.
Objective To investigate the incidence and management of CTEPH in the Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine in Xijing Hospital to enrich the epidemiological data of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) in China.Methods We conducted a retrospective study to investigate the incidence and management of CTEPH in the Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine in Xijing Hospital from 2008 to 2012. Results The incidence of CTEPH was 5.24% . About 62.90% of venous thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism (VTE/PE) patients were unprovoked, and about 53.85% of CTEPH patients was unprovoked. About 38% of CTEPH patients had no history of VTE, and 62% of CTEPH patients had no history of acute pulmonary embolism. None of the CTEPH patients was treated by pulmonary thromboendarterctom (PTE) , and about 53.85% of patients were only given anticoagulant monotherapy. Conclusions The incidence of CTEPH is higher in our hospital than reported. This phenomenon may be related to the lack of awareness of risk factors of CTEPH and the insufficient thrombolytic and anticoagulant therapy to acute pulmonary embolism. It’s very urgent to standardize the diagnosis and management of CTEPH in pulmonologists.