目的 探讨外周血CD34阳性（CD34⁺）细胞计数对普乐沙福自体干细胞动员效果的预测价值。方法 回顾性分析2021年5月—2023年7月中山大学附属第七医院使用人粒细胞集落刺激因子（G-CSF）联合普乐沙福进行自体干细胞动员的13例患者临床资料,分析普乐沙福动员前后外周血CD34⁺细胞计数的变化及干细胞采集情况。结果 共有13例患者纳入研究,包括淋巴瘤10例和多发性骨髓瘤3例。多发性骨髓瘤患者中1例为新诊断,另2例为复发患者;淋巴瘤患者中3例为套细胞淋巴瘤,6例为弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤（包括1例复发）,1例为B细胞淋巴瘤（不能明确类型）。本研究纳入的患者均使用G-CSF动员,在使用普乐沙福后CD34⁺细胞计数均升高,使用普乐沙福前中位CD34⁺细胞计数为13.3（2.5~76.1）/μL,使用普乐沙福后中位CD34⁺细胞计数为73.6（10.4~208.70）/μL,升高4.18（1.99~13.60）倍。13例患者中有2例患者在使用普乐沙福前外周血CD34⁺细胞计数<5 /μL,均动员失败。Spearman相关分析结果显示,使用普乐沙福后CD34⁺细胞计数与使用普乐沙福前CD34⁺细胞数呈正相关（r_s=0.769,P=0.003）。多元线性回归分析显示,使用普乐沙福后CD34⁺细胞计数能较好地预测采集结果（P=0.004）。结论 监测外周血CD34⁺细胞计数可预测普乐沙福自体干细胞动员效果,使用普乐沙福后CD34⁺细胞计数越多,CD34⁺细胞采集量越大。

Objective To explore the predictive value of peripheral blood CD34⁺ cell count for the stem cell mobilization effect of plerixafor．Methods The clinical data of 13 patients who used granulocyte colony-stimulating factor + plerixafor for stem cell mobilization in the Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from May 2021 to July 2023 were retrospectively analyzed．The changes of peripheral blood CD34⁺ cell count in all patients before and after the mobilization of plerixafor were analyzed．Results In 13 enrolled patients,there were 10 lymphoma patients and 3 multiple myeloma（MM）patients．One patient was newly diagnosed with MM,and the other two were recurrent patients．The lymphoma cases included 3 mantle cell lymphoma,6 diffuse large B cell lymphoma and 1 B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma（type cannot be specified）．The CD34⁺ cell counts were increased in all patients when mobilized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor before plerixafor．The CD34⁺ cell count was 13.3（2.5~76.1）/μL and 73.6（10.4~208.70）/μL before and after the use of plerixafor,between which the difference was statistically significant（Z=0.578,P<0.05）,and the median increased of 4.18（1.99~13.6）times．There were 2 patients failed in mobilizing whose CD34⁺ cell count was less than 5 /μL before using plerixafor．Spearman analysis showed that there was a positive correlation in peripheral blood CD34⁺ cell count before and after the use of plerixafor（r_s=0.80,P=0.032）．The CD34⁺ cell count after using plerixafor was a good predictor of the collection results（P=0.002）．Conclusions Monitoring the CD34⁺ cell count in peripheral blood has a certain predictive value for the stem cell mobilization effect of plerixafor．The higher of CD34⁺ cell count after the use of plerixafor,the higher of CD34⁺ collection．

目的 本文主要对接受两种不同的甲氨蝶呤治疗方式与腹腔镜保守治疗输卵管妊娠患者治疗效果进行比较,了解不同治疗方案所具有的优势。方法 选择参与者为收治的输卵管妊娠患者200例(时间选择:2018年1月—2020年12月),以治疗方案进行分组(共2组,各100例)。对照组进行腹腔镜下输卵管线性切开术治疗,术中应用甲氨蝶呤治疗;研究组在术前进行甲氨蝶呤肌注,48小时后进行腹腔镜输卵管线性切开术治疗;比较治疗结果。结果 2组输卵管通畅率、术后持续异位妊娠率比较有差异,2组比对有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 2组手术指标(手术时长、术中出血量、β-hCG恢复至正常时间)比较有差异,2组比对有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 输卵管妊娠患者选择腹腔镜下输卵管线性切开术治疗时联合术前肌注甲氨蝶呤或术中应用甲氨蝶呤治疗,均可有助于输卵管妊娠症状的进一步缓解。但在此次治疗中患者术前接受甲氨蝶呤肌注+腹腔镜输卵管线性切开术联合治疗取得的疗效比常规的术中应用甲氨蝶呤更具有治疗优势,患者手术时长明显缩短,术中出血量明显降低,有效的避免反复电凝止血造成对输卵管造成的伤害,对输卵管功能进行有效保护,可推广。

目的 运用DRG分析临床路径管理对患者住院费用的影响。方法 采用BJ-DRGs分组器,选取2016年广州某三级综合医院的出院患者病案首页信息及DRG分组信息,对比是否实施临床路径管理对患者的总体住院费用影响及各DRG组的住院费用差异。结果 路径组中位住院费用为9 239.41元,低于对照组的12 358.06元,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。费用构成分析发现,路径组的治疗费、检查费、药品费、手术费和其他费低于对照组,而材料费用相对较高。比较的14个DRG组中,6个DRG组的路径组住院费用低于对照组。结论 实行临床路径管理可降低患者住院费用、改变费用构成。结合DRG积极推进临床路径精细化管理,可有效控制病种成本,遏制医疗费用的不合理增长。

Objective Using DRG to analyze the impacts on inpatient costs of a hospital in Guangzhou as incurred by clinical pathway management. Methods As performed by BJ-DRGs, we selected DRG grouping information and medical record homepage information of the inpatients discharged from a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou in 2016. Then we compared the impacts of clinical pathway management on overall inpatients costs and the difference of inpatient costs for the DRG group. Results The median of inpatient costs in the clinical pathway group was 9239.41 yuan, was lower than that of control group which was 12358.06 yuan, and the difference was statistical difference (P<0.001). Cost composition analysis found that the costs of treatment, examination, medicine, surgery and the others in the clinical pathway group were much lower than that of the control group, while the cost of materials was relatively high. Among the 14 DRG group study, there were 6 DRG groups which the inpatient costs of the clinical path group was obviously lower than the control group. Conclusion The implementation of clinical pathway management may reduce the inpatient costs and change the makeup of costs. Therefore, combining with DRG, we actively promote the refined management of clinical pathway, which may effectively control the costs of diseases and the unreasonable growth of medical expenses.