With the development of society and changes in people's lifestyles, diabetes mellitus (DM) has become a major risk factor threatening human health, with its incidence rate increasing year by year. Based on the theory of "excessive fire consumes qi while mild fire generates qi", combined with the pathological mechanism and symptom characteristics of DM complicated with heart failure (HF), it is considered that deficiency and insufficiency of "less fire" and excessive "strong fire" consume qi are the fundamental pathogenesis of the occurrence and development of the two diseases. Phlegm, dampness, blood stasis and water are all from this, which further aggravates the disease. The basic treatment principle of "tonifying qi, activating yang, supporting Shao fire, clearing heat, detoxifying and strengthening fire" was proposed. Combined with the different emphasis of patients' syndromes, the treatment methods of promoting blood circulation and removing blood stasis, diuresis and phlegm were supplemented, in order to improve the clinical symptoms of patients and improve the survival rate.

Objective To evaluate the application of rabbit liver cancer model in teaching interventional medicine for graduate students.Methods A total of 10 first-year master graduate students majoring in Radiological Imaging(Interventional Medicine).who were studying at Zhengzhou University of China,were enrolled in this study.The rabbit liver cancer model was used as the experimental teaching materials.The teaching contents included the establishment of rabbit liver cancer model,the interventional operation of rabbit liver cancer,the method of scientific research and teaching,the evaluation of the teaching effect,and the survey of student satisfaction.Results Under the guidance of teaching tutor,the success rate of VX2 rabbit liver cancer modeling performed by the 10 master graduate students majoring in interventional medicine was 100％,and the mean operational quality assessment score was(11.5±2.0)points.During the operation of interventional surgery,the success rate of femoral artery puncture was also 100％,and the mean score for each interventional operation was(11.8±2.3)points.The students'experimental designs were evaluated by the expert group,the results were as follows:2 cases were rated as excellent,7 cases were rated as good,and one case was rated as moderate.The degree of students'satisfaction with experimental teaching method was high,the specific scores of each item are as follows:the understanding of the rabbit liver cancer model was(4.80±0.40)points,the command of interventional technology was(4.60±0.49)points,and the quality and practicability of teaching materials was(4.90±0.30)points.Conclusion This teaching method of using rabbit liver cancer model experiment can improve the animal experiment ability,interventional operation ability and scientific research innovation ability of graduate students.Animal model teaching method is an innovation of teaching mode for graduate students majoring in interventional medicine.

Objective To investigate the effect of drug-eluting bead DACE(DEB-TACE)combined with systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC)in different locations.Methods A total of 204 HCC patients who underwent DEB-TACE combined with systemic therapy(targeted and immunotherapy)were retrospectively collected.According to the anatomical location of HCC,86 cases with lesions located at the main trunk of portal vein(PV)or within 1 cm of the first PV branch were classified into central type group,while 118 cases with lesions located at the other areas were classified as peripheral type group.Follow-up was regularly performed after DEB-TACE until August,2024.The objective response rate(ORR)and disease control rate(DCR)at 1,3,6 and 12 months after DEB-TACE,also patients'progression-free survival(PFS)and overall survival(OS)were compared between groups.Results All patients were followed up for a median of 32.6 months,during which 164 cases died.Significant differences of ORR at 1 and 3 months after DEB-TACE(77.91％[67/86]vs.89.83％[106/118],34.88％[30/86]vs.54.24％[64/118])and DCR at 3 and 6 months after DEB-TACE(51.16％[44/86]vs.66.95％[79/118],34.88％[30/86]vs.50.00％[59/118])were found between groups(all P＜0.05).Patients'PFS(30.18[9.12,48.54]months)and OS(37.36[17.79,56.68])in peripheral type group were better than those in central type group(20.11[11.35,28.87]months and 23.24[3.11,43.47]months,x2=3.971,4.162,P=0.048,0.041).Conclusion The effect of DEB-TACE combined with systemic treatment for peripheral type HCC was better than for central type HCC.

Objective To investigate the effect of drug-eluting bead DACE(DEB-TACE)combined with systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC)in different locations.Methods A total of 204 HCC patients who underwent DEB-TACE combined with systemic therapy(targeted and immunotherapy)were retrospectively collected.According to the anatomical location of HCC,86 cases with lesions located at the main trunk of portal vein(PV)or within 1 cm of the first PV branch were classified into central type group,while 118 cases with lesions located at the other areas were classified as peripheral type group.Follow-up was regularly performed after DEB-TACE until August,2024.The objective response rate(ORR)and disease control rate(DCR)at 1,3,6 and 12 months after DEB-TACE,also patients'progression-free survival(PFS)and overall survival(OS)were compared between groups.Results All patients were followed up for a median of 32.6 months,during which 164 cases died.Significant differences of ORR at 1 and 3 months after DEB-TACE(77.91％[67/86]vs.89.83％[106/118],34.88％[30/86]vs.54.24％[64/118])and DCR at 3 and 6 months after DEB-TACE(51.16％[44/86]vs.66.95％[79/118],34.88％[30/86]vs.50.00％[59/118])were found between groups(all P＜0.05).Patients'PFS(30.18[9.12,48.54]months)and OS(37.36[17.79,56.68])in peripheral type group were better than those in central type group(20.11[11.35,28.87]months and 23.24[3.11,43.47]months,x2=3.971,4.162,P=0.048,0.041).Conclusion The effect of DEB-TACE combined with systemic treatment for peripheral type HCC was better than for central type HCC.

Objective:To explore the clinical changes in levels of the new clinical marker serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) pregenomic RNA (pgRNA) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) with long-term antiviral therapy.Methods:100 CHB cases who were initially treated with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) at Peking University First Hospital were included. The levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), HBV DNA, hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg), and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) during the follow-up period were measured. The TaqMan-based real-time quantitative PCR method was used to detect serum HBV pgRNA levels. The independent sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare continuous variables between groups, while Pearson's χ2 test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical variables. Results:HBV pgRNA levels decreased significantly in patients who developed virological responses at 48 weeks ( n = 54) during subsequent treatment compared to those who did not ( n = 46). The HBV pgRNA level was lower in HBeAg-positive patients than in HBeAg-negative patients ( P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). Patients with higher HBV DNA and HBeAg-positivity levels at baseline had a higher HBV pgRNA level following antiviral therapy. There was no statistically significant difference in HBV pgRNA levels in patients with different HBV pgRNA levels at baseline after antiviral therapy. There was no correlation between serum HBV pgRNA and HBsAg at baseline, but there was a correlation after long-term antiviral therapy, while there was a weak correlation between HBV pgRNA and HBsAg at the fifth and ninth years of antiviral therapy ( r = 0.262, P = 0.031; r = 0.288, P = 0.008). Conclusion:HBV pgRNA levels were higher with higher HBV activity in CHB patients with long-term antiviral therapy.

Cardiomyopathy, Dilated/metabolism* ; Humans ; Microfilament Proteins/metabolism* ; Models, Cardiovascular ; Mutation ; Myocytes, Cardiac ; Pluripotent Stem Cells/metabolism* ; Transcription Factors/metabolism* ; Troponin T/metabolism*

Objective: To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture-level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing "watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of "watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′s exact test for categorical variables. Results: Forty-eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3-year disease-free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty-five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over-treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%,70/77) and DWI-MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty-six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long-term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty-one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty-four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty-two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus-preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty-nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty-six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow-up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty-one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty-six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non-operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non-operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To explore the reasons for withdrawal from peritoneal dialysis (PD) in our hospital.Methods This was a single-center,retrospective cohort study.Patients who started PD in the Department of Nephrology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from November 1st,2005 to February 28th,2017,were enrolled,and followed up to May 31,2017.Patients who continued PD after May 31,2017 were as the control group.Patients who withdrew from PD were divided into 4 subgroups:death group,hemodialysis group,kidney transplantation group and loss of follow-up group.The clinical characters of 4 subgroups were compared with the control group.Results A total of 998 patients were enrolled with age of (49.36± 14.94) when PD started and median dialysis duration of 27.13(12.84,42.29) months,in whom 570 patients (57.11％) were male.Five hundred and seventeen dropout events were recorded,and the dropout rate was 51.80％.The main reason for withdrawal from PD was death (258 patients,49.90％),followed by hemodialysis (166patients,32.11％),kidney transplantation (66 patients,12.77％) and loss to follow-up (27 patients,5.22％).The leading cause of death was cardio-cerebro-vascular diseases (136 cases,52.71％),followed by infection (42 cases,16.28％),dyscrasia (20 cases,7.75％) and tumor (5 cases,1.94％).The main reason for transfering to hemodialysis was insufficient dialysis (76 cases,45.78％),followed by peritonitis (55 cases,33.13％) and catheter dysfunction (24 cases,14.46％).Compared with those in the control group,in the death group patients were older at PD commencement,and had higher proportions of hypertension,diabetes and cardio-cerebro-vascular diseases (all P ＜ 0.05).The proportions of male and diabetes mellitus were higher in the hemodialysis group than those in the control group (both P ＜0.05).Biochemical indicators showed that serum albumin and blood phosphorus were lower in the death group than those in the control group (both P ＜ 0.05);blood albumin was significantly lower in the hemodialysis group than that in the control group (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions The main reasons for withdrawal from PD in our center are death and transfering to hemodialysis.The cardio-cerebro-vascular disease is the leading cause of death,and inadequate dialysis is the main reason for transfering to hemodialysis.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.