【摘要】 目的 探讨介入治疗股骨头无菌性坏死（ANFH）的疗效。 方法 纳入1996-2009年间确诊的ANFH患者15例，采用经外周动脉穿刺插管的方法，经血管造影明确供血血管的位置，经导管向其内灌注扩张血管药、舒筋活血中药和溶栓药物，以改善股骨头供血状况；并追踪随访1~3年，根据杨白明评定标准从疼痛、功能、X线片3个方面进行判定，观察其临床症状的改善。 结果 Ⅰ~Ⅲ期ANFH患者的临床症状减轻，甚至消失；痊愈50%，显效25%，有效15%。 结论 介入治疗Ⅰ~Ⅲ期ANFH的疗效显著。【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 探讨脑出血患者病死率与发病早期不同血压水平的关系。 方法 选择2006年2月－2012年6月在我院住院、符合入选标准及排除标准的患者120例, 经头颅CT证实为基底节区脑出血，血肿体积20～40 mL，收缩压＜200 mm Hg（1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa），舒张压＜110 mm Hg。 按照中国高血压分级标准（1级高血压：收缩压140～159 mm Hg或舒张压90～99 mm Hg；2级高血压：收缩压160～179 mm Hg或舒张压100～109 mm Hg；3级高血压：收缩压≥180 mm Hg或舒张压≥110 mm Hg）将患者分组，各组采用降颅内压、营养神经、维持水电解质平衡、对症治疗及康复治疗和康复护理等常规治疗，观察2周内各组病死率。 结果 1级高血压组与2级高血压组2周内病死率比较，差异无统计学意义（χ2=0.075，P=0.785）；1级高血压组与3级高血压组2周内病死率比较，差异有统计学意义（χ2=5.698，P=0.017）；2级高血压组与3级高血压组2周内病死率比较，差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.528，P=0.033）。 结论 对于早期血压较高的脑出血患者，进行积极的降压治疗，将血压控制在2级高血压水平，可以明显降低病死率。
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.