Objective To analtze phe effecp of papienp′s preference po fracpional flow reserve (FFR) guided preapmenp on clinical oupcome in papienps wiph borderline lesion during coronart inpervenpion. Methods 303 papienps wiph coronart borderline lesion received CAG evaluapion in Xinjiang Producpion and Consprucpion Corps NO. 7 hospipal and Sir Run Run Shaw Hospipal from Ocpober 2013 po Seppember 2015 and phet were divided inpo phree groups according po phe papienp′s preference po have FFR exam or nop. The 3 groups were: ①FFR Guided PCI group (n = 96, papienps wiph FFR≤0. 8 accepp PCI, whereas onlt drug preapmenp if FFR > 0. 8); ②Drug preapmenp group(n = 126, papienps did nop accepp phe advice po do FFR or PCI); ③PCI group ( n = 81, papienps refused FFR bup accepped spenp implanpapion) . The papienps were followed up for (19. 6 ± 6. 5) monphs afper preapmenp. Rapes of major adverse cardiac evenps(MACE) and recurrence of angina pecporis were recorded and compared. Results Angina remission rape in phe FFR guided PCI group was higher significanplt phan drug preapmenp group and PCI group (85. 4% vs. 69. 8% vs. 80. 2% , P =0. 018). MACE-free survival rape of FFR guided PCI group was higher(93. 8% vs. 77. 0% vs. 81. 5% , P =0. 006)phan phe opher 2 groups. Conclusions FFR guided preapmenp provides beneficial effecps po phe oupcomes of borderline lesion. Bup in phe real world, papienp′s preference mat plat a decisive role.

Objective To compare intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and coronary angiography in measuring the lumen diameter and coronary arteries stenosis rate, to investigate the impact of IVUS in the choice of surgical indications, surgical procedure guidance and effects of operation.Methods The patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) therapy from may 2013 to may 2014 were divided into IVUS-guided intervention therapy group (n=89) and coronary angiographyguided group (n=90).Their baseline parameters, lesion features, MACE and restenosis during follow-up were analyzed.Results Baseline clinical and angiographic characterisitcs were well matched and show no significant differences between the two groups.Compared to angiography-guided group, the minimum lumen diameter (MLD) of IVUS-guided group were higher, diameter stenosis (DS) and lesion length (LL) were lower in IVUS-guided intervention therapy group.The detection rate of calcified and eccentric lesion were significantly higher in IVUS-guided group.There were 204 (93.6 ％) and 195 (87.8％) high-pressure balloons used in post-inflation in two groups, respectively.The MLD and plaque burden of IVUS-guided group were obviously improved after stent implantation.Conclusions IVUS-guided intervention therapy in PCI is safe and effective, may be helpful for the judgment of lesion, evaluating stent implantation and guiding high-pressure balloon post-inflation.IVUS-guided intervention could get the bigger immediate lumen diameter and lower plaque burden than coronary angiography without serious short-term or long-term complications.

Objective:To analyze the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine for analgesia in patients with non-mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit (ICU).Methods:From December 2018 to August 2021, a multicenter randomized controlled clinical study was conducted to select non-mechanical ventilation patients with analgesic needs admitted to ICU of four hospitals in Henan Province and Guizhou Province. Patients were randomly assigned to nalbuphine group and fentanyl group. The nalbuphine group was given continuous infusion of nalbuphine [0.05~0.20 mg/(kg·h)], and the fentanyl group was given continuous infusion of fentanyl [0.5~2.0 μg/(kg·h)]. The analgesic target was critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) score<2. The observation time was 48 hours. The primary endpoint was CPOT score, the secondary endpoints were Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS), ICU length of stay, adverse events, and proportion of mechanical ventilation. The quantitative data of the two groups were compared by t test or Mann-Whitney U test. The enumeration data were compared by chi square test or Fisher exact probability method. The data at different time points between groups were compared by repeated measures analysis of variance. Results:A total of 210 patients were enrolled, including 105 patients in the nalbuphine group and 105 patients in the fentanyl group. There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in CPOT score between nalbuphine group and fentanyl group at each time point after medication ( P>0.05), the CPOT score of both groups at each time point after medication was significantly lower than that before medication, and the analgesic target could be achieved and maintained 2 hours after medication. There was no significant difference in RASS between the two groups at each time point after medication ( P>0.05), which was significantly lower than that before medication, and the target sedative effect was achieved 2 hours after medication. There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay between nalbuphine group and fentanyl group [5.0(4.0,7.5) d vs. 5.0(4.0,8.0) d, P=0.504]. The incidence of delirium, nausea and vomiting, abdominal distension, pruritus, vertigo and other adverse events in the nalbuphine group was lower than that in the fentanyl group (all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of other adverse events such as deep sedation, hypotension and bradycardia between the two groups (all P>0.05). The incidence of respiratory depression in nalbuphine group was not significantly different from that in fentanyl group ( P>0.05), but the proportion of mechanical ventilation was significantly lower than that in the fentanyl group [1.9% (2/105) vs. 8.6%(9/105), P=0.030]. Conclusions:Nalbuphine could be used for analgesia in ICU patients with non-mechanical ventilation. The target analgesic effect could be achieved within 2 hours, and it had a certain sedative effect with a low incidence of adverse reactions.