Objective:To explore the prognostic value of monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio (MHR) in assessing patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods:Patients with HFrEF (LVEF<40%) admitted to the TEDA International Cardiovascular Disease Hospital between 2 January 2019 and 15 January 2023 were selected. The MHR levels were recorded at admission in patients with HFrEF who were followed up regularly for 12 months. The major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death and readmission for heart failure) were defined as poor prognosis. Multivariate Cox regression was used to analyze factors associated with poor prognosis. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the diagnostic value of MHR for poor prognosis. The DeLong test was used to analyze whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of MHR and BNP for detecting poor prognosis. The critical value grouping for poor prognosis was evaluated by MHR, and survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier.Results:A total of 286 subjects were enrolled in the study, including 206 males and 80 females, with a median age ( Q1, Q3) of 67 (58, 74) years. Multivariate Cox regression showed that MHR ( HR=1.482, 95% CI:1.015-2.164) and BNP ( HR=1.001, 95% CI:1.000-1.001) were associated with poor prognosis in patients with HFrEF. The area under the ROC curve for the adjunctive diagnostic value of MHR, BNP and the combination of both for poor prognosis in patients with HFrEF was 0.709, 0.738 and 0.769, respectively. The critical values were 0.486, 1 090 pg/ml and 0.41, respectively. The DeLong test showed no differences in the validity of MHR, BNP and their combination for detecting poor prognosis. Kaplan Meier survival analysis of 12-month follow-up showed that the time for poor prognosis in HFrEF patients with MHR>0.486 group (8.645 months) was significantly shorter than that in MHR≤0.486 group (10.296 months, P<0.001), and the risk of poor prognosis in MHR>0.486 group was 2.843 times higher than that in MHR≤0.486 group ( HR=2.843, 95% CI:1.867-4.327). Conclusion:MHR can be an indicator of poor prognosis in patients with HFrEF.

Objective:To explore the relationship between the differential genes derived from transcriptome mRNA sequencing and prognosis among heart failure patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).Methods:This was a case-control study. Ten patients with HFmrEF and 10 patients with HFpEF treated at TEDA International Cardiovascular Disease Hospital from November 2021 to January 2022 were selected and differentially expressed genes were screened by transcriptome mRNA sequencing. Ten healthy people served as control group. In addition, 50 patients with HFmrEF, 62 patients with HFpEF, who were treated at TEDA International Cardiovascular Disease Hospital at the same period, were selected as validation groups, 57 healthy people served as control validation group. Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) was used to detect the expression of differential genes in each group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the differential diagnosis and prognostic value of differential genes in these patients. Patients were followed up regularly to document adverse events within 1 year after discharge including cardiac death and readmission for heart failure. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and tested by log rank test. Cox regression analysis was used to explore whether differential mRNA was risk factors for poor prognosis in HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.Results:A total of four genes were differentially expressed (three upregulated and one downregulated gene) between the HFmrEF group and HFpEF group (adjust P<0.05). SLC12A1, C15orf48 and SPP1 were associated with the progress of cardiovascular disease, and selected for validation in the clinical cohort. RT-qPCR results showed that the gene expression of SLC12A1 in the HFmrEF group was significantly higher than that in the HFpEF group ( P<0.001). The AUC for the adjunctive differential diagnostic value of SLC12A1 for HFmrEF and HFpEF was 0.802 ( P<0.001) and the AUC of SLC12A1 with a cut-off value of 6.634 was 0.737 ( P=0.003) in determining poor prognosis in patients with HFpEF. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that patients with SLC12A1≤6.634 had a higher incidence of adverse cardiac events than patients with SLC12A1 >6.634 ( P=0.001). Cox regression analysis showed that the risk of adverse cardiac events in the SLC12A1 ≤6.634 group was 6.787 times higher than in the SLC12A1 >6.634 group ( HR=6.787, P=0.011). Conclusions:Transcriptome mRNA sequencing analysis is valuable for detecting clinical relevant differentially expressed genes in HFmrEF and HFpEF patients, among which SLC12A1 can be used as a novel molecular biomarker to aid the differential diagnosis of HFmrEF and HFpEF. In addition, SLC12A1 may be used as an adjunctive biomarker for the prognosis evaluation in patients with HFpEF.

Objective:To explore the prognostic value of monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio (MHR) in assessing patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods:Patients with HFrEF (LVEF<40%) admitted to the TEDA International Cardiovascular Disease Hospital between 2 January 2019 and 15 January 2023 were selected. The MHR levels were recorded at admission in patients with HFrEF who were followed up regularly for 12 months. The major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death and readmission for heart failure) were defined as poor prognosis. Multivariate Cox regression was used to analyze factors associated with poor prognosis. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the diagnostic value of MHR for poor prognosis. The DeLong test was used to analyze whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of MHR and BNP for detecting poor prognosis. The critical value grouping for poor prognosis was evaluated by MHR, and survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier.Results:A total of 286 subjects were enrolled in the study, including 206 males and 80 females, with a median age ( Q1, Q3) of 67 (58, 74) years. Multivariate Cox regression showed that MHR ( HR=1.482, 95% CI:1.015-2.164) and BNP ( HR=1.001, 95% CI:1.000-1.001) were associated with poor prognosis in patients with HFrEF. The area under the ROC curve for the adjunctive diagnostic value of MHR, BNP and the combination of both for poor prognosis in patients with HFrEF was 0.709, 0.738 and 0.769, respectively. The critical values were 0.486, 1 090 pg/ml and 0.41, respectively. The DeLong test showed no differences in the validity of MHR, BNP and their combination for detecting poor prognosis. Kaplan Meier survival analysis of 12-month follow-up showed that the time for poor prognosis in HFrEF patients with MHR>0.486 group (8.645 months) was significantly shorter than that in MHR≤0.486 group (10.296 months, P<0.001), and the risk of poor prognosis in MHR>0.486 group was 2.843 times higher than that in MHR≤0.486 group ( HR=2.843, 95% CI:1.867-4.327). Conclusion:MHR can be an indicator of poor prognosis in patients with HFrEF.

Objective:To explore the relationship between the differential genes derived from transcriptome mRNA sequencing and prognosis among heart failure patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).Methods:This was a case-control study. Ten patients with HFmrEF and 10 patients with HFpEF treated at TEDA International Cardiovascular Disease Hospital from November 2021 to January 2022 were selected and differentially expressed genes were screened by transcriptome mRNA sequencing. Ten healthy people served as control group. In addition, 50 patients with HFmrEF, 62 patients with HFpEF, who were treated at TEDA International Cardiovascular Disease Hospital at the same period, were selected as validation groups, 57 healthy people served as control validation group. Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) was used to detect the expression of differential genes in each group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the differential diagnosis and prognostic value of differential genes in these patients. Patients were followed up regularly to document adverse events within 1 year after discharge including cardiac death and readmission for heart failure. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and tested by log rank test. Cox regression analysis was used to explore whether differential mRNA was risk factors for poor prognosis in HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.Results:A total of four genes were differentially expressed (three upregulated and one downregulated gene) between the HFmrEF group and HFpEF group (adjust P<0.05). SLC12A1, C15orf48 and SPP1 were associated with the progress of cardiovascular disease, and selected for validation in the clinical cohort. RT-qPCR results showed that the gene expression of SLC12A1 in the HFmrEF group was significantly higher than that in the HFpEF group ( P<0.001). The AUC for the adjunctive differential diagnostic value of SLC12A1 for HFmrEF and HFpEF was 0.802 ( P<0.001) and the AUC of SLC12A1 with a cut-off value of 6.634 was 0.737 ( P=0.003) in determining poor prognosis in patients with HFpEF. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that patients with SLC12A1≤6.634 had a higher incidence of adverse cardiac events than patients with SLC12A1 >6.634 ( P=0.001). Cox regression analysis showed that the risk of adverse cardiac events in the SLC12A1 ≤6.634 group was 6.787 times higher than in the SLC12A1 >6.634 group ( HR=6.787, P=0.011). Conclusions:Transcriptome mRNA sequencing analysis is valuable for detecting clinical relevant differentially expressed genes in HFmrEF and HFpEF patients, among which SLC12A1 can be used as a novel molecular biomarker to aid the differential diagnosis of HFmrEF and HFpEF. In addition, SLC12A1 may be used as an adjunctive biomarker for the prognosis evaluation in patients with HFpEF.

Objective To prepare flumazenil sublingual tablets and study its bioavailability. Methods Flumazenil sublingual tablets were prepared by compressing flumazenil inclusion compound with hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin as the inclusion material. In a double-cycle crossover trial, twelve beagle dogs were randomly divided into two groups, one group receiving flumazenil sublingual tablets and the other receiving flumazenil injections. LC-MS method was developed and validated to determine flumazenil plasma concentration. The pharmacokinetic parameters and bioavailability were calculated using WinNonlin pharmacokinetic software. Results In the pharmacokinetic study, AUC_last of flumazenil injection and sublingual tablet was （8.41±2.15） and （8.86±2.83） h·ng·ml⁻¹, respectively; C_max was （10.96±2.62） and （6.36±2.14） ng/ml, respectively; t_max was （0.18±0.05） and （0.58±0.24） h, respectively. The bioavailability of flumazenil sublingual tablet was 52.68%. Conclusion Clathrates were used to prepare flumazenil sublingual tablets to achieve safe and efficient delivery. LC-MS method was established for the determination of flumazenil plasma concentration, and the advantages were simple, accurate and sensitive.

Objective:To investigate the changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and its role in predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF) before and after implanted a HeartCon left ventricular assist device (LVAD).Methods:The retrospective study included 30 ESHF patients [23 males and 7 females, aged 54.5 (40.8, 60.0) years], who were admitted to TEDA International Cardiovascular Disease Hospital from September 15, 2020 to June 20, 2023 to receive treatment with HeartCon LVAD implantation. Their clinical data were analyzed and NT-proBNP concentrations in their blood samples were measured preoperatively and during the follow-up period. Patients were followed regularly and MACEs, including cardiac death and rehospitalization for right heart failure, were recorded within 6 months of discharge; Logistic regression was used for prognostic analysis, and Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the adjunctive diagnostic value of NT-proBNP for poor prognosis in LVAD patients. The cut-off values for diagnosing poor prognosis by NT-proBNP were divided into two groups, and survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and tested by log rank; Cox regression was performed to analyze whether high levels of NT-proBNP at 6 months of follow-up wsa a risk factor for poor prognosis in patients with LVAD.Results:The median preoperative NT-proBNP level in 30 ESHF patients successfully implanted with HeartCon LVADs was 3 251.0 (1 544.5, 6 401.5) pg/ml. It decreased significantly 7 days postoperatively (3 251.0 vs. 1 815.0 pg/ml, P<0.05), and then the decreasing trend slowed. It decreased to 1 182.0 (620.0, 3 385.3) pg/ml on the 90th post-operative day. The preoperative NT-proBNP>3 251.0 pg/ml group had a longer postoperative hospital stay (47 d vs 33 d, Z=-2.138, P=0.032). Multivariate logistic regression analysis, only NT-proBNP at 7 days postoperatively was found to predict poor prognosis in LVAD patients, with an OR of 1.001 ( P=0.01); ROC curves were analyzed for the adjunctive diagnostic value of 7-day postoperative NT-proBNP levels for poor prognosis (cut-off value of 2 083.0 pg/ml), with an AUC of 0.833 ( P=0.002); The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the time to MACEs within 6 months was significantly shorter in the group with NT-proBNP>2 083.0 pg/mL on postoperative day 7 than in the group with NT-proBNP≤2 083.0 pg/ml (3.538±0.689 vs. 5.471±0.323 months, P=0.004); Cox regression analysis showed that the risk of MACEs was 4.25 times higher in the 7-day postoperative NT-proBNP>2 083.0 pg/ml group than in the NT-proBNP≤2 083.0 pg/ml group ( HR=4.25, P=0.035). Conclusions:The higher the preoperative NT-proBNP level, the longer the postoperative hospital stay in HeartCon LVAD patients. NT-proBNP levels decrease most significantly on postoperative day 7 and is a risk factor for MACEs. It may be used as a prognostic predictor in ESHF patients with implanted LVADs.

Objective: To study the expression and clinical value of glycogen synthase kinase-3β(GSK-3β), Dickkopf-1(DKK-1) and β-catenin in patients with proximal gastric cancer. Methods: From April 2016 to April 2017, 47 patients with proximal gastric cancer in Chengfeng Hospital of Daqing Oilfield Group were enrolled in this study.Immunohistological tests were performed in all patients' lesions, adjacent tissues and healthy tissues.The effects of different factors on the expression of GSK-3β and DKK-1 were compared. Results: The positive expression rate of GSK-3β in the normal tissues of patients with proximal gastric cancer was 70.21% (33/47), which was higher than those in the lesions and adjacent tissues[21.28% (10/47), 21.28%(10/47)](χ²=31.985, P<0.01). The positive expression rates of DKK-1 and β-catenin in the gastric cancer tissues were 38.30% (18/47), 82.98% (39/47), respectively, which were higher than those in the adjacent tissues and normal tissues[8.51% (4/47), 8.51% (4/47), and 6.38% (3/47), 2.13% (1/47)](χ²=20.517, 88.471, all P<0.01). The GSK-3β positive expression rate was higher in patients with tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage I-II, moderately well differentiated, infiltrated more than 50%, non-metastatic lymph nodes (P<0.05). The DKK-1 positive expression rate was higher in patients with TNM stage III-IV, moderately well differentiated and less than 50% infiltrated lymph nodes (P<0.05). Conclusion GSK-3β, DKK-1 and β-catenin are important indicators in the development and metastasis of gastric cancer.The above indicators have clinical value in the diagnosis and evaluation of curative effect.