ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Fibrobronchoscopy is a common adjunct tool that requires anesthesia and is widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of various respiratory diseases. However, current anesthesia methods, such as spray, nebulized inhalation, and cricothyroid membrane puncture, have their own advantages and disadvantages. Recently, studies have shown that bronchoscopic direct-view glottis anesthesia is a simple and inexpensive method that shortens the examination time and provides excellent anesthetic results. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of bronchoscopic direct vision glottis anesthesia for bronchoscopy. METHODS: The study included 100 patients who underwent bronchoscopy during thoracic surgery. A random number table method was used to divide the patients into control and observation groups (50 patients each). The control and observation groups were anesthetized using the nebulized inhalation and bronchoscopic direct vision glottis method, respectively. Hemodynamic indices [systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) before (T1), 5 min after anesthesia (T2), and at the end of the operation (T3)] serum stress hormone indices [norepinephrine (NE), epinephrine (E), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and cortisol (Cor) before and after treatment] were compared between the 2 groups. Adverse effects were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS: At T2 and T3, SBP, DBP, and HR were lower in the observation group than the control group, whereas SpO2 was higher than the control group [(119.05 ± 8.01) mmHg vs (127.05 ± 7.83) mmHg, (119.35 ± 6.66) mmHg vs (128.39 ± 6.56) mmHg, (84.68 ± 6.04) mmHg vs (92.42 ± 5.57) mmHg, (84.53 ± 4.97) mmHg compared to (92.57 ± 6.02) mmHg, (74.25 ± 5.18) beats/min compared to (88.32 ± 5.72) beats/min, (74.38 ± 5.31) beats/min compared to (88.42 ± 5.69) beats/min, (97.36 ± 2.21)% vs (94.35 ± 2.16)%, (97.42 ± 2.36)% vs (94.38 ± 2.69%], with statistically significant differences (all P < 0.05). After treatment, NE, E, ACTH, and Cor were significantly higher in both groups than before treatment, but were lower in the observation group than in the control group [(68.25 ± 8.87) ng/mL vs (93.35 ± 14.00) ng/mL, (53.59 ± 5.89) ng/mL vs (82.32 ± 10.70) ng/mL, (14.32 ± 1.58) pg/mL vs (20.35 ± 3.05) pg/mL, (227.35 ± 25.01) nmol/L vs (322.28 ± 45.12) nmol/L], with statistically significant differences (all P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was higher in the control group than in the observation group [12.00% (12/50) vs 6.00% (3/50)] (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of bronchoscopic direct vision glottis anesthesia method for bronchoscopy patients is beneficial for stabilizing hemodynamic indices during bronchoscopy and reducing the level of patient stress, with good safety and practicality.
ABSTRACT
The treatment of advanced triple-negative breast cancer, which failed in first-line or second-line therapy, is a significant challenge. We conducted this retrospective study to explore the efficacy and safety of apatinib and capecitabine as the third-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer.This retrospective study involved 44 advanced triple-negative breast cancer patients who failed in first-line or second-line therapy in Tangshan People's Hospital from January 2016 to February 2017. Twenty-two patients received apatinib and capecitabine, while 22 patients were treated with capecitabine monotherapy as third-line therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events were compared between 2 groups.The apatinib and capecitabine group exhibited a higher PFS than capecitabine group (Pâ=â.001). Meanwhile, ORR and DCR in apatinib and capecitabine group were better than in capecitabine group (Pâ=â.042; .016). The 2 groups showed no significant difference in adverse events except degree I-II bleeding (Pâ=â.021). Both the apatinib and capecitabine and the capecitabine regimens revealed good tolerability.The apatinib and capecitabine regimen can achieve a better efficacy and similar serious adverse events compared with capecitabine regimen as the third-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer.
