One of its primary surgical treatments of tricuspid regurgitation is tricuspid valve biological valve replacement. Catheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation is a novel interventional alternative for biological valve failure. The non-invasive lung fluid measuring device remote dielectric sensing (ReDSTM) has been increasingly incorporated into clinical practice as a means of monitoring chronic heart failure in recent years. This report describes the process and outcomes of the first instance of perioperative lung fluid volume evaluation following transcatheter tricuspid valve implantation utilizing ReDSTM technology. The patient has a short-term, substantial increase in postoperative lung fluid volume as compared to baseline.

Objective To explore the relationship between pain and recurrent falls in the elderly with self-care ability. Methods Based on data from the 4th (2018) and 5th (2020) of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), a binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the association between pain and recurrent falls in the elderly. Results Among the 1219 elderly people, the average age was (69.6 ± 7.0) years old, with 407 males (33.39%) and 812 females (66.61%). 2) The risk of falling again with mild, moderate, and severe pain was 32.83%, 43.98% and 41.63%, respectively; The risk of falling again was 28.25%, 38.48% and 45.99% for pain sites ≤2, 3-5 and ≥6, respectively. 3) Regression analysis showed that the risk of falling again in the elderly with moderate pain was 1.38 times higher than that with mild pain (OR: 1.38, 95%CI: 1.05-1.81). Compared with those with less than 2 pain sites, the risk of falling again was increased by 50% (OR: 1.50, 95%CI: 1.07-2.09) and 76% (OR: 1.76, 95%CI: 1.28-2.42) in those with 3 to 5 pain sites and ≥6 pain sites, respectively. In women, the risk of falling again was 1.99 times higher in those with ≥6 pain sites than in those with ≤2 pain sites (OR: 1.99, 95%CI: 1.32-3.00). Conclusion The pain level and the risk of falling again in the elderly are in an inverted U-shaped distribution, and the number of pain sites is positively correlated with the risk of falling again in the elderly. Headache, shoulder pain, back pain, leg pain and ankle pain are all related to the risk of falling again in the elderly. It is recommended to manage pain reasonably to reduce the risk of recurrent falling in the elderly.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) for mitral regurgitation (MR) is known as M-TEER. Its strengths include: precise targets and fewer implants; simple and clear principles for catheterization; originating from dependable medical concepts and broad applicability. Furthermore, TEER offers advantages in real-time hemodynamic and effectiveness measurement throughout the procedure over surgical edge-to-edge repair (SEER). When it comes to patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation , M-TEER should aim to deliver more optimum procedural outcomes. In functional mitral regurgitation, a modest transvalvular gradients or moderate residual shunt can be tolerated with M-TEER, which reduces the risk of problems and has no bearing on the patient's prognosis.

Background Schizophrenia and the use of antipsychotic medications are identified to be the likely contributors to the development of metabolic syndrome(MS)and cardiovascular disease,and jeopardize the prognosis of schizophrenia.Therefore,effectively preventing or reducing the risk of developing MS in patients with schizophrenia is critical.Objective To explore the efficacy of aripiprazole combined with olanzapine for male schizophrenia patients and its effect on MS,so as to provide a certain reference for the selection of antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia patients.Methods Male patients(n=80)who were hospitalized in The Third People's Hospital of Meizhou from February to June 2023 and fulfilling the International Classification of Diseases,tenth edition(ICD-10)diagnostic criteria for the schizophrenia were enrolled,and grouped using random number table method,each with 40 cases.Study group was treated with aripiprazole combined with olanzapine,while control group was given aripiprazole monotherapy.The treatment lasted for 6 continuous weeks in both groups.At the baseline,Positive and Negative Symptom Scale(PANSS)score,MS-related indices[fasting plasma glucose(FPG),hemoglobin A1c(HbA1c),body mass index(BMI),waist-to-hip ratio(WHR),lipid profile],S100 calcium-binding protein B(S100B)and high sensitivity C-reactive protein(hs-CRP)were recorded.Then the PANSS scores at the end of the 2nd,4th and 6th week of treatment,the Clinical Global Impression(CGI)scores at the end of the 2nd and 6th week of treatment,as well as the MS-related indices,S100B,hs-CRP,Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale(TESS)score and Rating Scale for Extrapyramidal Side Effects(RSESE)score at the end of the 6th week of treatment were recorded in all participants.Results Analysis on PANSS score revealed a significant group effect,time effect and group×time interaction effect(F=18.092,634.780,2.917,P<0.05 or 0.01).Analysis on CGI score revealed a significant group effect and time effect(F=20.492,99.190,P<0.01).At the end of the 6th week of treatment,study group detected lower serum concentrations of HbA1c and triglyceride(TG)compared with control group(t=-3.495,-3.293,P<0.05).The post-treatment hs-CRP level was lower in study group than that in control group(t=-3.916,P<0.05).Study group scored lower on TESS compared with control group(t=-4.684,P<0.01).Conclusion Aripiprazole combined with olanzapine can effectively alleviate psychotic states in male schizophrenia patients,and the combination therapy yields less impact on MS-related indices than olanzapine monotherapy.

Objective:To investigate and analyze case reporting ethical review and patient informed consent reports published in the comprehensive journals of clinical medicine in China in 2022.Methods:According to the data from the 2022 Edition of the Chinese Science and Technology Journal of the Citation Reports(Extended Version),the case reports published in comprehensive journals of clinical medicine in 2022 were selected as the research objects.The information on ethics and patient informed consent was extracted from the case reports that met the selection criteria,and Microsoft Excel 2021 and SPSS 21.0 were used to sort out and analyze the data.Results:A total of 587 case reporting articles were published in the 42 included journals in 2022,of which 36(6.13%)reported on science and technology ethics and/or informed consent.Case reports reporting on science and technology ethics and/or informed consent mostly came from the key magazine of China technology(88.89%Vs.65.88%),and the proportion of manuscripts involving science and technology ethics on the official website of the journal was relatively high(86.11%Vs.63.88%),and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.01).Conclusion:The proportion of case reports of science and technology ethics and/or informed consent in journals of comprehensive discipline classification of clinical medicine was relatively low.Currently,most international journals are required to obtain the informed consent of patients or legal guardians before publishing case reports.Compared with this,there are still certain gaps in China,which need to be paid great attention to.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.