ObjectiveTo assess the safety of the removal of pericardial and mediastinal drain within different drainage volume after cardiac valvular replacement surgery.MethodsBetween July 2013 and July 2017, 201 patients with rheumatic heart disease (CHD) were treated with valve replacement in our hospital, including 57 males and 144 females, aged 15 to 72 years. They were divided into two groups according to the amount of 24-h drainage before the drain removal: a group one with 24-h drainage volume≤50 ml (n=127) and a group two with 24-h drainage volume>50 ml (n=74). The postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of severe complications between the two groups were compared.ResultsThere was no difference between the two groups in the baseline information or the incidence of severe pericardial effusion and tamponade, while the group two tended to have a shorter length of hospital stay after surgery (8.0 d vs. 7.5 d, P=0.013).ConclusionIn CHD patients undergoing valvular surgery, compared with a relatively low amount of drainage before the drain removal, drawing the tube at a greater amount of drainage (24-h drainage volume>50 ml) will shorten the length of hospital stay after cardiac surgery while incidence of severe complications remains the same.
Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia associated with high mortality and morbidity, and the current treatment of atrial fibrillation is still limited. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) plays an important role in the pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease and promotes the occurrence of atrial fibrillation. Inhibition of HDAC may be a new therapeutic strategy through the regulation of atrial remodeling. Therefore, we reviewed the research progress of the HDAC and atrial fibrillation.
Objective To systematically review venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment tools. Methods The Embase, PubMed, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP databases and 22 relevant institutions and associations were searched to identify all VTE assessment tools from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and cross-checked the data. A qualitative analysis was used to describe the country's essential characteristics, publishing organization, year, applicable disease type, applicable population, tool formation method, etc. Key elements and techniques were compared in terms of evaluation dimension, methods, and procedures to form the tool, risk stratification ability, and whether to verify. Results A total of 42 VTE risk assessment tools were included, of which 16 were in the United States, and only 4 were in China. They were released between 1996 and 2021, and the applicable disease types and populations differ. Nineteen tools were constructed based on case-control or retrospective cohort studies, 16 were conducted using prospective cohort studies, and 5 were based on cross-sectional and RCT studies; Additionally, 20 tools were built based on logistic regression models; The evaluation dimensions of each tool differed, and the most common frequency of occurrences were VTE history, age, BMI value, and confirmed tumor, accounting for 64.29%, 54.76%, 54.76%, and 47.62%, respectively. Thirty-three tools were stratified for risk, and 30 tools were presented in the form of risk scores; Some tools lacked clinical validation data, and only 12 tools were analyzed for specificity, sensitivity, NPV, PPV, and AUC. Conclusion The evaluation dimensions and evidence sources of existing VTE risk assessment tools are not completely consistent, the implementation methods and results presentation forms of the tools are not completely the same, and the scope of application is different; Some tool construction methods and processes are not clear enough, and there is a lack of validation research on external validity, which has certain limitations in promoting clinical practice in China.