| 1 | 雷珠单抗治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性的长期疗效(英文)显示文摘目的:研究就诊于我院新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(NV-AMD)患者使用雷珠单抗治疗后3年的疗效。方法:回顾性研究。共纳入73例(101眼)患者。根据入组时视力情况(ETDRS chart),患者被分为3组。第1组:视力≤35;第2组:视力36~54;第3组:视力≥55字母。患者接受3次,每次0.5 mg的雷珠单抗负荷剂量,之后根据病情决定是否再次注射。对患者每月进行一次随访,进行视力、详细的眼前节及眼底的生物显微镜,以及光学相干断层扫描(OCT)检查。对最接近12、24、36mo的视力检查结果进行分析。结果:纳入的101眼中,男性57眼,女性44眼。患者平均年龄75.1岁。治疗24mo和36mo时,三组患者之间视力变化情况差异均有统计学意义(P=0.002,0.0001)。治疗36mo后,第2组视力较入组时显著改善(P=0.001),第3组患者视力改善不显著。随访12、24、36mo时,第1组视力无明显变化的患者人数最多。所有患者平均注射雷珠单抗7.3次,随访次数23.9次。结论:入组时视力情况尚可的患者视力改善最明显。视力较差和视力较好的患者视力改变不明显。最终视力与注射次数无明显关系。 | Burak Simsek Aylin Ardagil Akcakaya Isilay Ozsoy Koyun Sevil Ari Yaylali | 2018 | 国际眼科杂志2018，18，3： | 3 |
| 4 | Effects of contrast media on the hepato-pancreato-biliary system显示文摘AIM:To determine the effects of high osmolarity contrast media (HOCM) and iso-osmolar contrast media (CM) application, with or without pressure, on hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) system.METHODS: Sixty rats were divided into six equal groups as follows: Group 1: (0.9% NaCl, control), Group 2: (diatrizoate meglumine Na, ionic HOCM, Urographin?), Group 3: (iodixanol, iso-osmolar non-ionic CM, Visipaque?); each of which was applied without pressure, whereas the animals of the remaining three groups (1p, 2p, 3p) were subjected to the same CM with pressure. We performed a duodenal puncture and introduced a catheter into the ampulla. After the catheterization, 0.2 mL CM or 0.9% NaCl was injected with or without pressure. Blood samples were taken for biochemical evaluations. The histopathological examinations of liver, common bile duct, and pancreas were performed.RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the six groups for blood amylase, alanine aminotransferases, aspartate aminotransferases, bilirubin levels (P>0.05). Alkaline phosphatase and γ glutamyl transaminase levels were higher (P < 0.05) in the Urographin? groups (2, 2p) than the Visipaque? groups (3, 3p), or control groups (1, 1p). Hepatocyte necrosis, portal area inflammation, and Kupffer's cell hyperplasia were higher (P<0.05) in the study groups than the control group. However, there were no significant differences (P>0.05) between HOCM (2,2p) and iso-osmolar CM (3,3p) groups. Bile duct proliferation and regeneration in the Urographin groups (2, 2p) were significantly higher (P<0.05) than the Visipaque groups (3, 3p) or the control groups (1,1p). Although CM caused minor damage to the pancreas, there were no statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between the groups. Application of the CM with pressure did not cause additional damage to the HPB system.CONCLUSION: Iso-osmolar, non-ionic CM could be more reliable than the ionic HOCM, whereas the application of pressure during the CM application had no effect on the HPB system. | Omer Topcu Atilla Kurt Isilay Nadir Sema Arici Ayhan Koyuncu Cengiz Aydin | 2009 | World Journal of Gastroenterology2009，15，38： | 0 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员