1.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
2.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
3.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
4.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
5.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
6.Clinical Effects of Pomalidomide-Based Regimen in the Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.
Man YANG ; Yan HUANG ; Ling-Xiu ZHANG ; Guo-Qing LYU ; Lu-Yao ZHU ; Xian-Kai LIU ; Yan GUO
Journal of Experimental Hematology 2025;33(2):431-436
OBJECTIVE:
To study the clinical effects of pomalidomide-based regimen in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).
METHODS:
60 patients with RRMM in hematology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University from November 2020 to January 2023 were selected. Among them, 15 cases were treated with PDD regimen (pomalidomide + daratumumab + dexamethasone), and 45 cases were treated with PCD regimen (pomalidomide + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone). The clinical effects were evaluated.
RESULTS:
The median number of treatment cycles for the entire cohort was 5 (2-11), with an overall response rate (ORR) of 75.0%. The ORR of patients treated with PDD regimen was 73.3%, while the ORR of patients treated with PCD regimen was 75.6%. The ORR of 46 patients with non high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (non-HRCA) was 86.9%, significantly higher than the 35.7% of 14 patients with HRCA (χ2 =15.031, P < 0.05). The median PFS for all patients was 8.0(95%CI : 6.8-9.1) months and the median OS was 14.0 (95%CI : 11.3-16.7) months. Among patients treated with PDD regimen, the PFS and OS of patients with non-HRCA were significantly higher than those of patients with HRCA [PFS: 7.0(95%CI : 4.6-9.3) months vs 4.0(95%CI : 3.1-4.8) months, χ2 =5.120, P < 0.05; OS: not reached vs 6.0(95%CI : 1.1-10.9) months, χ2 =9.870, P < 0.05]. Among patients treated with PCD regimen, the PFS and OS of patients with non-HRCA were significantly higher than those of patients with HRCA [PFS: 9.0(95%CI : 6.2-11.8) months vs 6.0(95%CI : 5.4-6.6) months, χ2=14.396, P < 0.05; OS: not reached vs 11.0(95%CI : 6.4-15.6) months, χ2 =7.471, P < 0.05].
CONCLUSION
The pomalidomide-based regimen has a good clinical effect and safety in the treatment of RRMM.
Humans
;
Multiple Myeloma/drug therapy*
;
Thalidomide/administration & dosage*
;
Dexamethasone/therapeutic use*
;
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use*
;
Female
;
Male
;
Middle Aged
;
Recurrence
;
Aged
;
Cyclophosphamide/therapeutic use*
;
Treatment Outcome
;
Antibodies, Monoclonal
7.The chordata olfactory receptor database.
Wei HAN ; Siyu BAO ; Jintao LIU ; Yiran WU ; Liting ZENG ; Tao ZHANG ; Ningmeng CHEN ; Kai YAO ; Shunguo FAN ; Aiping HUANG ; Yuanyuan FENG ; Guiquan ZHANG ; Ruiyi ZHANG ; Hongjin ZHU ; Tian HUA ; Zhijie LIU ; Lina CAO ; Xingxu HUANG ; Suwen ZHAO
Protein & Cell 2025;16(4):286-295
8.Epidemiological Investigation of Dampness Syndrome Manifestations in the Population at Risk of Cerebrovascular Disease
Xiao-Jia NI ; Hai-Yan HUANG ; Qing SU ; Yao XU ; Ling-Ling LIU ; Zhuo-Ran KUANG ; Yi-Hang LI ; Yi-Kai ZHANG ; Miao-Miao MENG ; Yi-Xin GUO ; Xiao-Bo YANG ; Ye-Feng CAI
Journal of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine 2024;41(3):531-539
Objective To make an epidemiological investigation on traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)dampness syndrome manifestations in the population at risk of cerebrovascular diseases in Guangdong area.Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted to analyze the clinical data related to the risk of cerebrovascular diseases in 330 Guangdong permanent residents.The diagnosis of dampness syndrome,quantitative scoring of dampness syndrome and rating of the risk of stroke were performed for the investigation of the distribution pattern of dampness syndrome and its influencing factors.Results(1)A total of 306(92.73%)study subjects were diagnosed as dampness syndrome.The percentage of dampness syndrome in the risk group was 93.82%(258/275),which was slightly higher than that of the healthy group(48/55,87.27%),but the difference was not statistically significant(χ2 = 2.91,P = 0.112).The quantitative score of dampness syndrome in the risk group was higher than that of the healthy group,and the difference was statistically significance(Z =-2.24,P = 0.025).(2)Among the study subjects at risk of cerebrovascular disease,evaluation time(χ2 = 26.11,P = 0.001),stroke risk grading(χ2= 8.85,P = 0.031),and history of stroke or transient ischemic attack(TIA)(χ2 = 9.28,P = 0.015)were the factors influencing the grading of dampness syndrome in the population at risk of cerebrovascular disease.Conclusion Dampness syndrome is the common TCM syndrome in the population of Guangdong area.The manifestations of dampness syndrome are more obvious in the population with risk factors of cerebrovascular disease,especially in the population at high risk of stroke,and in the population with a history of stroke or TIA.The assessment and intervention of dampness syndrome should be taken into account for future project of stroke prevention in Guangdong.
9.Application of a deep learning-based three-phase CT image models for the automatic segmentation of gross tumor volumes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Guorong YAO ; Kai SHEN ; Feng ZHAO ; Siyuan WANG ; Zhongjie LU ; Kejie HUANG ; Senxiang YAN
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection 2024;44(2):111-118
Objective:To investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of a 3D U-Net in conjunction with a three-phase CT image segmentation model in the automatic segmentation of GTVnx and GTVnd in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Methods:A total of 645 sets of computed tomography (CT) images were retrospectively collected from 215 nasopharyngeal carcinoma cases, including three phases: plain scan (CT), contrast-enhanced CT (CTC), and delayed CT (CTD). The dataset was grouped into a training set consisting of 172 cases and a test set comprising 43 cases using the random number table method. Meanwhile, six experimental groups, A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, and B2, were established. Among them, the former four groups used only CT, only CTC, only CTD, and all three phases, respectively. The B1 and B2 groups used phase fine-tuning CTC models. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95) served as quantitative evaluation indicators.Results:Compared to only monophasic CT (group A1/A2/A3), triphasic CT (group A4) yielded better result in the automatic segmentation of GTVnd (DSC: 0.67 vs. 0.61, 0.64, 0.64; t = 7.48, 3.27, 4.84, P < 0.01; HD95: 36.45 vs. 79.23, 59.55, 65.17; t = 5.24, 2.99, 3.89, P < 0.01), with statistically significant differences ( P < 0.01). However, triphasic CT (group A4) showed no significant enhancement in the automatic segmentation of GTVnx compared to monophasic CT (group A1/A2/A3) (DSC: 0.73 vs. 0.74, 0.74, 0.73; HD95: 14.17 mm vs. 8.06, 8.11, 8.10 mm), with no statistically significant difference ( P > 0.05). For the automatic segmentation of GTVnd, group B1/B2 showed higher automatic segmentation accuracy compared to group A1 (DSC: 0.63, 0.63 vs. 0.61, t = 4.10, 3.03, P<0.01; HD95: 58.11, 50.31 mm vs. 79.23 mm, t = 2.75, 3.10, P < 0.01). Conclusions:Triphasic CT scanning can improve the automatic segmentation of the GTVnd in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Additionally, phase fine-tuning models can enhance the automatic segmentation accuracy of the GTVnd on plain CT images.
10.Chinese expert consensus on blood support mode and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma patients (version 2024)
Yao LU ; Yang LI ; Leiying ZHANG ; Hao TANG ; Huidan JING ; Yaoli WANG ; Xiangzhi JIA ; Li BA ; Maohong BIAN ; Dan CAI ; Hui CAI ; Xiaohong CAI ; Zhanshan ZHA ; Bingyu CHEN ; Daqing CHEN ; Feng CHEN ; Guoan CHEN ; Haiming CHEN ; Jing CHEN ; Min CHEN ; Qing CHEN ; Shu CHEN ; Xi CHEN ; Jinfeng CHENG ; Xiaoling CHU ; Hongwang CUI ; Xin CUI ; Zhen DA ; Ying DAI ; Surong DENG ; Weiqun DONG ; Weimin FAN ; Ke FENG ; Danhui FU ; Yongshui FU ; Qi FU ; Xuemei FU ; Jia GAN ; Xinyu GAN ; Wei GAO ; Huaizheng GONG ; Rong GUI ; Geng GUO ; Ning HAN ; Yiwen HAO ; Wubing HE ; Qiang HONG ; Ruiqin HOU ; Wei HOU ; Jie HU ; Peiyang HU ; Xi HU ; Xiaoyu HU ; Guangbin HUANG ; Jie HUANG ; Xiangyan HUANG ; Yuanshuai HUANG ; Shouyong HUN ; Xuebing JIANG ; Ping JIN ; Dong LAI ; Aiping LE ; Hongmei LI ; Bijuan LI ; Cuiying LI ; Daihong LI ; Haihong LI ; He LI ; Hui LI ; Jianping LI ; Ning LI ; Xiying LI ; Xiangmin LI ; Xiaofei LI ; Xiaojuan LI ; Zhiqiang LI ; Zhongjun LI ; Zunyan LI ; Huaqin LIANG ; Xiaohua LIANG ; Dongfa LIAO ; Qun LIAO ; Yan LIAO ; Jiajin LIN ; Chunxia LIU ; Fenghua LIU ; Peixian LIU ; Tiemei LIU ; Xiaoxin LIU ; Zhiwei LIU ; Zhongdi LIU ; Hua LU ; Jianfeng LUAN ; Jianjun LUO ; Qun LUO ; Dingfeng LYU ; Qi LYU ; Xianping LYU ; Aijun MA ; Liqiang MA ; Shuxuan MA ; Xainjun MA ; Xiaogang MA ; Xiaoli MA ; Guoqing MAO ; Shijie MU ; Shaolin NIE ; Shujuan OUYANG ; Xilin OUYANG ; Chunqiu PAN ; Jian PAN ; Xiaohua PAN ; Lei PENG ; Tao PENG ; Baohua QIAN ; Shu QIAO ; Li QIN ; Ying REN ; Zhaoqi REN ; Ruiming RONG ; Changshan SU ; Mingwei SUN ; Wenwu SUN ; Zhenwei SUN ; Haiping TANG ; Xiaofeng TANG ; Changjiu TANG ; Cuihua TAO ; Zhibin TIAN ; Juan WANG ; Baoyan WANG ; Chunyan WANG ; Gefei WANG ; Haiyan WANG ; Hongjie WANG ; Peng WANG ; Pengli WANG ; Qiushi WANG ; Xiaoning WANG ; Xinhua WANG ; Xuefeng WANG ; Yong WANG ; Yongjun WANG ; Yuanjie WANG ; Zhihua WANG ; Shaojun WEI ; Yaming WEI ; Jianbo WEN ; Jun WEN ; Jiang WU ; Jufeng WU ; Aijun XIA ; Fei XIA ; Rong XIA ; Jue XIE ; Yanchao XING ; Yan XIONG ; Feng XU ; Yongzhu XU ; Yongan XU ; Yonghe YAN ; Beizhan YAN ; Jiang YANG ; Jiangcun YANG ; Jun YANG ; Xinwen YANG ; Yongyi YANG ; Chunyan YAO ; Mingliang YE ; Changlin YIN ; Ming YIN ; Wen YIN ; Lianling YU ; Shuhong YU ; Zebo YU ; Yigang YU ; Anyong YU ; Hong YUAN ; Yi YUAN ; Chan ZHANG ; Jinjun ZHANG ; Jun ZHANG ; Kai ZHANG ; Leibing ZHANG ; Quan ZHANG ; Rongjiang ZHANG ; Sanming ZHANG ; Shengji ZHANG ; Shuo ZHANG ; Wei ZHANG ; Weidong ZHANG ; Xi ZHANG ; Xingwen ZHANG ; Guixi ZHANG ; Xiaojun ZHANG ; Guoqing ZHAO ; Jianpeng ZHAO ; Shuming ZHAO ; Beibei ZHENG ; Shangen ZHENG ; Huayou ZHOU ; Jicheng ZHOU ; Lihong ZHOU ; Mou ZHOU ; Xiaoyu ZHOU ; Xuelian ZHOU ; Yuan ZHOU ; Zheng ZHOU ; Zuhuang ZHOU ; Haiyan ZHU ; Peiyuan ZHU ; Changju ZHU ; Lili ZHU ; Zhengguo WANG ; Jianxin JIANG ; Deqing WANG ; Jiongcai LAN ; Quanli WANG ; Yang YU ; Lianyang ZHANG ; Aiqing WEN
Chinese Journal of Trauma 2024;40(10):865-881
Patients with severe trauma require an extremely timely treatment and transfusion plays an irreplaceable role in the emergency treatment of such patients. An increasing number of evidence-based medicinal evidences and clinical practices suggest that patients with severe traumatic bleeding benefit from early transfusion of low-titer group O whole blood or hemostatic resuscitation with red blood cells, plasma and platelet of a balanced ratio. However, the current domestic mode of blood supply cannot fully meet the requirements of timely and effective blood transfusion for emergency treatment of patients with severe trauma in clinical practice. In order to solve the key problems in blood supply and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma, Branch of Clinical Transfusion Medicine of Chinese Medical Association, Group for Trauma Emergency Care and Multiple Injuries of Trauma Branch of Chinese Medical Association, Young Scholar Group of Disaster Medicine Branch of Chinese Medical Association organized domestic experts of blood transfusion medicine and trauma treatment to jointly formulate Chinese expert consensus on blood support mode and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma patients ( version 2024). Based on the evidence-based medical evidence and Delphi method of expert consultation and voting, 10 recommendations were put forward from two aspects of blood support mode and transfusion strategies, aiming to provide a reference for transfusion resuscitation in the emergency treatment of severe trauma and further improve the success rate of treatment of patients with severe trauma.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail