Objective:To discuss how to avoid the occurrence of adverse events and provides basis for improving the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) transport safety management to formulate the corresponding preventive measures through analyzing the causes and characteristics of adverse events in transport of ECMO.Methods:By using a self-designed ECMO transport observation table to collect data, with a retrospective study of adverse events in patients with ECMO transport in ECMO center of Beijing Chaoyang Hospital from January 2013 to June 2017, carrying out classification and analysis according to the causes of adverse events and the potential risks of the patients, thus put forward the feasible preventive measures.Results:There were 53 cases of ECMO transport in study period, with 18 cases (33.96%) of adverse events, among which the incidence of adverse events in inner-hospital transport was 34.21% (13/38) and that in inter-hospital transport was 33.33% (5/15). There was no patient died in ECMO transport. In the adverse events of ECMO transport, the main causes were related to transport staff, transport equipment and patient, which accounting for 1/3 of each. Among them, the most prominent was 4 cases (22.22%) of equipment lacking and 3 cases of battery and power supply (16.67%). In classification according to the risk degree of patients, 6 cases (33.33%) of third grade risk were found.Conclusions:It is safe and feasible to carry out ECMO transport in inner-hospital transport and inter-hospital transport based on ECMO transport team and transport process of this hospital. However the unexpected events of high risk or crisis of life is inevitable in ECMO transport. Through standardized training for ECMO team, with full assessment before transport, by the use of ECMO checklist and strict implementation of various transport processes and specifications, the incidence of adverse events in ECMO transport may be reduced.

Objective:To explore the efficacy and safety of Ganhai Weikang capsule (GWC) in the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD).Methods:A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel, multi-center, superiority clinical trial was conducted. From March 2018 to April 2020, totally 324 patients with dyspepsia symptoms, who were diagnosed as chronic non-atrophic gastritis by endoscopy and pathology and met the Rome Ⅳ diagnostic criteria for FD from 7 top hospitals were enrolled, including the First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University (Shanghai Changhai Hospital), Heilongjiang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Capital Medical University and the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The patients were randomly divided into the GWC group and the placebo group according to the ratio of 1∶1. The patients of GWC group were given GWC and the patients of placebo group were given GWC capsule simulant. The patients of both groups orally took capsules before meals, 2.4 g each time and 3 times per day, and the course of treatment was 4 weeks. The main efficacy index was the total clinical effective rate after 4 weeks, and the secondary efficacy index was the changes of clinical symptom scores of upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning, postprandial fullness and early satiety. The safety index included laboratory tests and adverse events. Chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analysis.Results:A total of 320 FD patients were enrolled in the full analysis set (FAS), which included 161 cases in GWC group and 159 cases in placebo group. A total of 298 cases were in the per-protocol set (PPS), 149 cases each in GWC group and placebo group. The results of FAS and PPS both showed that the total clinical effective rates of the GWC group were higher than those of the placebo group (84.5%, 136/161 vs. 44.0%, 70/159 and 83.9%, 125/149 vs. 46.3%, 69/149), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=57.07 and 46.32, both P<0.001). In addition, the differences of the total score of main symptoms and each symptom (upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning, postprandial fullness and early satiety) before and after treatment of GWC group were all higher than those of the placebo group (FAS: 10 (7, 14) vs. 5 (3, 11); 3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (0, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs. 1 (0, 3); 3 (1, 4) vs. 2 (1, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs. 1 (0, 3). PPS: 10 (7, 13) vs. 5 (3, 11); 3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (0, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs. 1 (0, 2); 3 (1, 4) vs. 2 (1, 3); 2 (0, 4) vs.1 (0, 3)), and the differences were statistically significant (FAS: Z=5.80, 5.91, 3.19, 3.72 and 3.30; PPS: Z=5.14, 5.11, 2.86, 3.21 and 2.84; all P<0.01). The results of FAS and PPS indicated that the improvement rates of main symptoms and each symptom (upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning, postprandial fullness and early satiety) of GWC group were all higher than those of the placebo group (FAS: 77.8% (54.6%, 91.3%) vs. 42.9% (28.6%, 61.5%); 100.0% (60.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 60.0%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 100.0%); 71.4% (33.3%, 100.0%) vs. 41.4% (25.0%, 66.7%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (20.0%, 100.0%). PPS: 77.8% (54.2%, 89.5%) vs. 44.0% (28.6%, 65.0%); 100.0% (60.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 100.0%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (25.0%, 100.0%); 71.4% (33.3%, 100.0%) vs. 46.4% (25.0%, 66.7%); 100.0% (50.0%, 100.0%) vs. 50.0% (20.0%, 100.0%)), and the differences were statistically significant (FAS: Z=8.60, 7.72, 4.98, 4.24 and 5.61; PPS: Z=7.90, 7.03, 4.49, 3.88 and 4.83; all P<0.001). After 2 weeks of treatment, the differences of the total score of main symptoms and score of each symptom (upper abdominal pain, upper abdominal burning and early satiety) before and after treatment of GWC group were all higher than those of the placebo group (5.0 (3.0, 8.0) vs. 4.0 (2.0, 6.0); 2.0 (1.0, 2.0) vs. 2.0 (0.0, 2.0); 1.5 (0.0, 2.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 2.0); 1.5 (0.0, 2.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 2.0)), and the differences were statistically significant ( Z=2.95, 3.44, 2.43 and 2.79, all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the GWC group and the placebo group (0.6%, 1/163 vs. 0, 0/159). Conclusion:The clinical total effective rate of GWC in the treatment of FD is superior to that of placebo and it has good safety.