指压天枢穴加腹部按摩联合番泻叶在静脉肾盂造影患者中的应用效果

目的探讨指压天枢穴加腹部按摩联合番泻叶在静脉肾盂造影患者中的应用效果。方法选取我院2018年12月至2019年8月期间行静脉肾盂造影的120例患者,随机分为两组各60例。对照组给予番泻叶,观察组给予天枢穴指压加腹部按摩联合番泻叶,比较两组的肠道清洁力度和不良反应情况。结果治疗后,观察组的肠道清洁力度明显高于对照组(P <0.05);观察组的不良反应发生率为6.67%,明显低于对照组的23.33%(P <0.05)。结论静脉肾盂造影患者采用指压天枢穴加腹部按摩联合番泻叶的效果较好,可提高肠道清洁力度,降低不良反应发生率。     

Intrathecal catheterisation after observed accidental dural puncture in labouring women: update of a meta-analysis and a trial-sequential analysis

BackgroundOur meta-analysis from 2013 showed that inserting a catheter intrathecally after an observed accidental dural puncture can reduce the need for epidural blood patch in labouring women requesting epidural analgesia. We updated our conventional meta-analysis and added a trial-sequential analysis (TSA).MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that compared inserting the catheter intrathecally with an epidural catheter re-site or with no intervention. The extracted data were pooled and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for the incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) was calculated, using the random effects model. A contour-enhanced funnel plot was constructed. A TSA was performed and the cumulative Z score, monitoring and futility boundaries were constructed.ResultsOur search identified 13 studies, reporting on 1653 patients, with a low risk of bias. The RR for the incidence of PDPH was 0.82 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.95) and the RR for the need for epidural blood patch was 0.62 (95%CI 0.49 to 0.79); heterogeneity of both analyses was high. The TSA showed that the monitoring or futility boundaries were not crossed, indicating insufficient data to exclude a type I error of statistical analysis. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were symmetric, suggesting no publication bias.ConclusionsConventional meta-analyses showed for the first time that intrathecal catheterisation can reduce the incidence of PDPH. However, TSA did not corroborate this finding. Despite increasing use in clinical practice there is no firm evidence on which to base a definite conclusion.     

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Purpose: To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications. Method: Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Results: A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits. Conclusions: PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.     

Patients' expectations,experience and acceptability of postoperative analgesia: a nested qualitative study within a randomised controlled trial comparing rectus sheath catheter and thoracic epidural analgesia

Adequate postoperative analgesia is a key element of enhanced recovery programmes. Thoracic epidural analgesia is associated with superior postoperative analgesia but can lead to complications. Rectus sheath catheter analgesia may provide an alternative. In a nested qualitative study (within a two-year randomised controlled trial) focussing on the acceptability, expectations and experiences of receiving the interventions, participants (n = 20) were interviewed 4 weeks post-intervention using a grounded theory approach. Constant comparative analysis, with patient and public involvement, enabled emerging findings to be pursued through subsequent data collection. We found no notable differences regarding postoperative acceptability or the experience of pain management. Pre-operatively, however, thoracic epidural analgesia was a source of anticipatory fear and anxiety. Both interventions resulted in some experienced adverse events (proportionately more with thoracic epidural analgesia). Participants had negative experiences of the insertion of thoracic epidural analgesia; others receiving the rectus sheath catheter lacked confidence in staff members' ability to manage the local anaesthetic infusion pump. The anticipation of the technique of thoracic epidural analgesia, and concerns about its impact on mobility, represented an additional, unpleasant experience for patients already managing an illness experience, anticipating a life-changing operation and dealing with concerns about the future. The anticipation of rectus sheath catheter analgesia was not associated with such anxieties. Patients' experiences start far earlier than the experience of the intervention itself through anticipatory anxieties and fears about receiving a technique and its potential implications. Complex pain packages can take on greater meaning than their actual efficacy in relieving postoperative pain. Future research into patient acceptability and experience should not focus solely on efficacy of pain relief but should include anticipatory fears, anxieties and experiences.     

Anticoagulation Strategies in Patients With Cancer: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Patients with active cancer are at an increased risk of arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events. Historically, in patients with cancer, low molecular weight heparins have been preferred for treatment of VTE, whereas warfarin has been the standard anticoagulant for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). More recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in large randomized clinical trials of patients with VTE and AF, respectively, thus providing an attractive oral dosing option that does not require routine laboratory monitoring. In this review, we summarize available clinical trial data and guideline recommendations, and outline a practical approach to anticoagulation management of VTE and AF in cancer.