Objective To explore the effects of cognitive impairment on the self-management ability and self-management behavior among the patients of end stage renal disease (ESRD) with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD).Methods 134 MHD patients were divided into the non cognitive impairment group(62 subjects) and cognitive impairment group(72 subjects) according to Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA)scores,to asses and analyze the level of hemodialysis knowledge,hemodialysis adherence,self-management ability and self-management behavior between the two groups.Results The rates of hemodialysis skipping behavior and the rates of hemodialysis shorting behavior in cognitive impairment group (respectively,18.06％,22.22％) were higher than that in non cognitive impairment group(respectively,6.45％,8.06％) with significant difference (x2 =4.0495,5.0526,all P＜0.05).The cognitive impairment group had significantly less total score (respectively,16.62 ± 1.99,51.32± 9.92,56.99±8.3) in the level of hemodialysis knowledge,the self-management ability and the self-management behavior compared with the non cognitive impairment group(respectively,18.48±2.03,63.69±10.16,78.54± 10.28) (t=5.3448,7.1172,13.4140,all P＜0.05).Conclusion Cognitive impairment can produce an effect on the level of hemodialysis knowledge and hemodialysis adherence.Cognitive impairment can also reduce the function of self-management ability and self-management behavior and make badly further effect on curative effect of hemodialysis.

Objective To invest the effect of minimal inflammation on patients with maintenance hemodialysis(MHD) and the intervention effect of ftuvastatin.Methods Blood indicators such as PA,ALB and BUN,Cr,TC,TG,HDL-C,LDL-C,Lp(a),SF,hs-CRP,IL-6 and TNF-α were detected at the first day of the study and six months later in all patients.Patients were divided into inflammation group(CRP≥8 mg/L) and non-inflammation group(CRP<8 mg/L) according to CRP levels.Only inflammation group used fluvastatin.Two groups were observed for six months.Results The level of hs-CRP,IL-6,TNF-α,TG,Lp(a),SF in MHD patients was obviously higher than the normal control group.The level of ALB was obviously lower than the normal control group.The angiocardiopathy incidence of inflammation group was obviously higher than that of the non-inflammation.The more obvious of minimal inflammation,the more significant of lipid metabolism disturbance and malnutrition.Hs-CRP,IL-6,TG,TC,LDL-C and Lp(a) of inflammation group decreased obviously(P<0.01 or P<0.05).ALB、HDL-C increased obviously(P<0.05).Indicators of the non-inflammation had no statistical difference after therapy.Conclusions Patients with MHD generally have minimal inflammation and malnutrition.Minimal inflammation has important effect on the angiocardiopathyincidence,lipid metabolism disturbance and malnutrition.Fluvastatin not only could regulate lipid metabolism but also improve the minimal inflammation of patients with MHD.Early detection and therapy of minimal inflammation has important significance on improving prognosis of patients with MHD.

Objective:To compare the therapeutic effects of nasal high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC) and nasal canal oxygenation (NCO) during breaks off non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), and to explore the feasibility of NIV combined with HFNC in the treatment of AECOPD.Methods:From August 2017 to July 2019, AECOPD patients with type Ⅱrespiratory failure (arterial blood gas pH <7.35, PaCO 2 > 50 mmHg) who were treated with NIV were randomly (random number) assigned to the HFNC group and NCO group at 1:1. The HFNC group received HFNC treatment during breaks from NIV and the NCO group received low-flow NCO during the NIV interval. The primary endpoint was the total respiratory support time. The secondary endpoints were endotracheal intubation, duration of NIV treatment and breaks from NIV, length of ICU stay, total length of hospital stay and so on. Results:Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group and the NCO group. After secondary exclusion, 36 patients in the HFNC group and 37 patients in the NCO group were included in the analysis. The total respiratory support time in the HFNC group was significantly shorter than that in the NCO group [(74 ± 18) h vs. (93 ± 20) h, P = 0.042]. The total duration of NIV treatment in the HFNC group was significantly shorter than that in the NCO group [(36 ± 11) h vs. (51 ± 13) h, P=0.014]. There was no significant difference of the mean duration of single break from NIV between the two groups, but durations of break from NIV in the HFNC group were significantly longer than those in the NCO group since the third break from NIV ( P < 0.05). The intubation rates of the HFNC and NCO groups were 13.9% and 18.9%, respectively, with no significant difference ( P=0.562). The length of ICU stay in the HFNC group was (4.3 ± 1.7) days, which was shorter than that in the NCO group [(5.8 ± 2.1) days, P=0.045], but there was no significant difference in the total length of hospital stay between the two groups. Heart rate, respiratory rate, percutaneous carbon dioxide partial pressure and dyspnea score during the breaks from NIV in the NCO group were significantly higher than those in the HFNC group, and the comfort score was lower than that in the HFNC group ( P<0.05). Conclusion:For AECOPD patients receiving NIV, compared with NCO, HFNC during breaks from NIV can shorten respiratory support time and length of ICU stay, and improve carbon dioxide retention and dyspnea. HFNC is an ideal complement to NIV therapy in AECOPD patients.

Objective:To compare the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with moderate typeⅡ respiratory failure, to clarify the feasibility of HFNC in the treatment of AECOPD, and to explore the influencing factors of HFNC failure.Methods:This study was a randomized controlled trial of non-inferiority. Patients with AECOPD with moderate type Ⅱ respiratory failure [arterial blood gas pH 7.25-7.35, partial pressure of arterial blood carbon dioxide (PaCO 2)> 50 mmHg] admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) from January 2018 to December 2021 were randomly assigned to the HFNC group and NIV group to receive respiratory support. The primary endpoint was the treatment failure rate. The secondary endpoints were blood gas analysis and vital signs at 1 h, 12 h, and 48 h, total duration of respiratory support, 28-day mortality, comfort score, ICU length of stay, and total length of stay. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the failure factors of HFNC treatment. Results:Totally 228 patients were randomly divided into two groups, 108 patients in the HFNC group and 110 patients in the NIV group. The treatment failure rate was 29.6% in the HFNC group and 25.5% in the NIV group. The risk difference of failure rate between the two groups was 4.18% (95% CI: -8.27%~16.48%, P=0.490), which was lower than the non-inferiority value of 9%. The most common causes of failure in the HFNC group were carbon dioxide retention and aggravation of respiratory distress, and the most common causes of failure in the NIV group were treatment intolerance and aggravation of respiratory distress. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (-29.02%, 95% CI -49.52%~-7.49%; P=0.004). After 1 h of treatment, the pH in both groups increased significantly, PaCO 2 decreased significantly and the oxygenation index increased significantly compared with baseline (all P < 0.05). PaCO 2 in both groups decreased gradually at 1 h, 12 h and 48 h after treatment, and the pH gradually increased. The average number of daily airway care interventions and the incidence of nasal and facial lesions in the HFNC group were significantly lower than those in the NIV group ( P < 0.05), while the comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that in the NIV group ( P=0.021). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the total duration of respiratory support, dyspnea score, ICU length of stay, total length of stay and 28-day mortality (all P > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ score (≥15), family NIV, history of cerebrovascular accident, PaCO 2 (≥60 mmHg) and respiratory rate (≥32 times/min) at 1 h were independent predictors of HFNC failure. Conclusions:HFNC is not inferior to NIV in the treatment of AECOPD complicated with moderate type Ⅱ respiratory failure. HFNC is an ideal choice of respiratory support for patients with NIV intolerance, but clinical application should pay attention to the influencing factors of its treatment failure.