• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Older age, longer procedures and tandem endoscopic-ultrasound as risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography bacteremia

    2020-12-11 03:32:16LiatDeutschShayMatalonAdamPhillipsMosheLeshnoOrenShiboletErwinSanto
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2020年41期

    Liat Deutsch, Shay Matalon, Adam Phillips, Moshe Leshno, Oren Shibolet, Erwin Santo

    Abstract

    Key Words: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Bacteremia; Tandemprocedures; Fine needle aspiration; Antibiotic prophylaxis; Biliary drainage

    INTRODUCTION

    Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is currently the method of choice for the treatment of biliary and pancreatic duct obstruction. However, serious post-procedural complications can occur. The most common complication is post-ERCP pancreatitis (1.6%-15.7%) followed by infectious complications (i.e., clinically significant bacteremia) such as cholangitis and sepsis (3%-5%)[1,2]. The necessity of pre-ERCP antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial. According to ASGE recommendations in 2015[1], antibiotic prophylaxis was not recommended when an ERCP was likely to achieve complete biliary drainage, based on high quality evidence. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP was recommended in liver transplantation recipients or patients with known or suspected biliary obstruction. It was recommended that antibiotics be continued after the procedure if biliary drainage was incomplete. This recommendation was recognized as moderate quality of evidence. The recommendations do not address specific populations or procedure-related factors that require specific management. In the nationwide population-based cohort study of the Swedish Registry of Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) administration of prophylactic antibiotics led to a 26% relative risk reduction and 2.6% absolute risk reduction of post-ERCP adverse events[3]. The beneficial effect was most prominent among patients with obstructive jaundice (32% relative risk reduction and 3.8% absolute risk reduction in post-ERCP complications).

    In a Cochrane systematic review of 9 randomized clinical trials (1573 patients), prophylactic antibiotics reduced post-ERCP bacteremia, septicemia and acute cholangitis, but the effect of antibiotics was less prominent in the subgroup of patients with biliary obstruction relieved during the first ERCP[4].

    The primary objective of this study was to evaluate possible risk factors for post-ERCP bacteremia (PEB). Secondary objectives were: Evaluation of PEB prevalence and to assess "real-life" practices of antibiotic administration and their competency to ASGE guidelines.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study design and population

    A total of 1082 ERCPs were performed between January 2012 - December 2013 in a single referral center. All ERCPs were performed by one of five certified gastroenterologists with more than 5-years' experience in advanced endoscopy in a single dedicated room. (In only two cases (0.4%) the name of the endoscopist was not documented). Demographic and clinical characteristics including indication, complications, pre and post procedure antibiotic treatment and bacterial blood cultures were collected and documented manually from patient's records. Exclusion criteria were: (1) Age < 18 years; (2) Positive bacterial blood culture before ERCP; (3) Scheduled antibiotic treatment prior to ERCP; (4) Hospitalization longer than 14 days before ERCP; and (5) Missing critical data (mainly medical charts of documented antibiotic treatment). The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB No: 0598-13-TLV), data was anonymous and informed consent was waivered.

    Variables definition

    Native papilla - Patients who previously underwent ERCP with papillotomy or pre-cut were considered "experienced patients" as opposed to patients with "native papilla".

    Obstructive malignancy – Bile duct compression by an abdominal tumor or metastases (i.e., pancreatic origin, cholangiocarcinoma, liver metastasesetc.). Malignancy without abdominal involvement was not recorded (for example breast cancer).

    "Na?ve obstructive malignancy" - Patients who had their first ERCP for the indication of obstructive jaundice due to compressive malignancy were labeled as "Na?ve obstructive malignancy".

    Antibiotic prophylaxis - antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as a single dosage of antibiotic drug given in the window period of 1 h before ERCP and up to the end of the procedure. If the procedure was ambulatory, the decision whether or not to give prophylaxis was made according to the endoscopist discretion. If the procedure was performed during hospitalization the decision was made by the treating physician in the ward.

    Tandem procedures – if an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was preformed just prior to the ERCP (in the same room, by the same physician and under the same anesthesia).

    ERCP duration - the procedure duration was calculated as the time interval between the first documented picture (papilla of Vater) and last picture (final cholangiography). If tandem procedures were performed, only the ERCP duration was calculated.

    Clinically significant PEB - bacterial blood cultures were drawn according to clinical indication (fever, systemic inflammatory response, cholangitis,etc.). PEB was defined as a positive bacterial blood culture within 7 d of ERCP date. Bacterial species and antibiotic resistance were documented.

    Appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis - a gastroenterology specialist from the advanced endoscopy unit, who did not participate in the ERCPs included and was blinded to the outcome following the ERCPs, reviewed all the cases, and ranked the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis according to the ASGE guidelines. There were 3 categories: (1) Prophylaxis was clearly indicated; (2) Prophylaxis was equivocal but was appropriate in the specific setting; and (3) Prophylaxis was not indicated.

    Statistical analysis

    All statistical analyses were performed using MATLAB (Mathwork Inc. version 2015b) and SPSS version 23.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, United State). Continuous variables are presented as means ± SD, while categorical variables are presented in percentage. Univariate analyses were used for the comparison of variable's distribution between the study groups. To test differences in continuous variables between two groups the independent samplest-test (for normally distributed variables) or the Mann-WhitneyUtest (if non-parametric tests were required) were performed. To test the differences in categorical variables the Pearsonχ2-Square test was performed,P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. We used stepwise Logistic Regression analysis with entry probability of 0.2 and Decision Tree algorithms with minimum leaf of 50 cases, for prediction modeling of bacteremia. The statistical methods of the study were reviewed by Leshno M, MD, from the Faculty of Management, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.

    RESULTS

    Study population

    A total of 1082 consecutive ERCPs were analyzed and 456 were excluded (Figure 1). Thus, a total of 626 ERCPs performed in 434 patients were included. In 84 cases (13.4%), bacterial blood cultures were drawn based on clinical suspicion. Positive cultures were documented in 23/84 cases (27.4%), thus the rate of clinically significant PEB was 23/626 (3.7%).

    Demographics and procedure associated data is shown in Table 1. Mean age at ERCP was 66.49 ± 15.4 years with 46.5% being male. Patient's characteristics were comparable between the PEB and non-PEB groups (Table 1). The most prevalent indication for ERCP in both groups was choledocholithiasis (30.4% and 32.2% for PEB and non-PEB groups respectively,P= NS) followed by elective stent replacement (26.1% and 24.9%, respectively,P= NS). This was a first ERCP intervention (native papilla) in 60.9% of the PEB cases and 44.9% of the non-PEB cases (P= NS). ERCP duration was significantly longer among the PEB group compared to the non-PEB group (40.87 ± 42.7vs28.64 ± 24.3 min, respectively,P= 0.02). The prevalence of tandem procedures (EUS followed immediately by ERCP) was significantly higher among the PEB group [5 (21.7%)vs37 (6.1%), respectively,P= 0.003). In the cases of tandem EUS/ERCP, fine needle aspiration (FNA) from a solid mass was performed in 9/37 cases of the non-PEB group and 4/5 cases of the PEB group (24.3%vs80%,P= 0.01). Intra ductal ultrasound (IDUS) was used in 2 cases and celiac block was performed in 1 case (all 3 cases were in the non-PEB group). The utilization of sphincterotomy, pre-cut or through the scope (TTS)-dilation was equally prevalent between the groups as well as the use of pancreatic stent. The use of naso-biliary drainage is very rare in our institute and was not documented. There was no difference in the distribution of ERCPs among five operators between the PEB and non-PEB groups (respectively: #1: 26.1%vs28.4%, #2: 39.1%vs31.7%, #3: 17.4%vs15.8%, #4: 13.0%vs19.6%, 5#: 4.3%vs4.3%, unknown: 0%vs0.4%,P= 0.985). Blood tests performed up to 72 h before ERCP were available for a minority of cases and are elaborated in Supplementary table 1.

    Microbial data

    There were 23 cases of Bacteremia: 11 cases (1.8%) were of theEnterobacteriaceaefamily (E.coliandKlebsiella spp.), 8 cases (1.3%) were extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producingEnterobacteriaceae, 2 cases (0.3%) werePseudomonas aeruginosaand the last 2 cases (0.3%) wereAcinetobacter baumannii(Figure 2A). Seventy percent of the positive cultures were drawn during the three days following the ERCP procedure and 21.7% up to the fifth day, 8.9% were drawn on days 6-7 (Figure 2B).

    To rule out other causes for bacteremia, invasive procedures such as percutaneous trans-hepatic drainage (PTD), cholecystostomy or surgery were documented (time interval- 7 days before the procedure and up to the day of bacterial culture collection). Pre-ERCP invasive procedure was not performed in any of the PEB cases. In the non-PEB group, 8 cases (1.3%) had pre-ERCP PTD, cholecystostomy was performed in 1 case (0.2%) and surgery in 12 cases (2%). Invasive procedures post-ERCP were documented in 2 cases (8.7%) from the PEB group, both were PTD insertion, and both were diagnosed with Acinetobacter bacteremia. There were 11 cases of invasive post-ERCP procedures in the non-PEB group (1.9%), with PTD in 4 cases (0.7%), and surgery in 7 cases (1.2%).

    Table 1 Patients' and procedures' characteristics

    Antibiotic prophylaxis

    In elective ambulatory procedures (520/626 cases, 83.1%), antibiotic prophylaxis with ceftriaxone was administrated in 14.2% of the cases. Administration was in accordance with ASGE recommendations and at the endoscopist discretion. In hospitalized patients (106/626 cases, 16.9%), antibiotic prophylaxis was administrated in 61.3% of cases (61.3%vs14.2%, in-patientsvsout-patients respectively,P< 0.001). Administration was at the treating physician discretion. Prophylaxis in hospitalized patients was administrated as a single drug in 13 cases (20.0%), two drugs in 7 cases (10.8%) and three drugs in 45 cases (69.2%).

    In order to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic administration, a case by case review of the ERCP reports by an advanced endoscopist blinded to drug administration was performed. Antibiotic prophylaxis was clearly indicated in 59 cases (9.3%) and not indicated in 538 cases (85.9%). In 30 cases (4.8%) antibiotic prophylaxis was deemed appropriate in the specific setting, though not clearly indicated by ASGE guidelines (Figure 3A). In line with this classification, the antibiotic prophylaxis was indicated in only 44 cases (31.7%), appropriate in 9 cases (6.5%) and not indicated in 86 (61.9%) out of 139 cases it was given (Figure 3B).

    Figure 1 Study flow chart. PEB: Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography bacteremia; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

    Figure 2 Bacterial type's dispersion among entire cohort and according to the days past endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography date. A: Bacterial type's dispersion among entire cohort; B: Bacterial type's according to the days past endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography date. ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; ESBL: Extended spectrum beta-lactamase.

    Out of 23 cases of PEB, none (0%) were indicated for antibiotic prophylaxis. Five cases (21.7%) were found appropriate and in 18(78.3%) cases there was no indication for antibiotic prophylaxis. In 2/23 cases of PEB antibiotic prophylaxis was actually administrated (both non-indicated). One case was an ambulatory procedure where Ceftriaxone was administered andEnterobacteriaceaePEB occurred. The other was an in-patient treated prophylactically by three different antibiotics (ceftriaxone, gentamycin and metronidazole) but ended up with ESBL PEB. In both cases the procedure duration was longer than 60 min (Figure 4).

    Risk factors for post ERCP bacteremia

    In order to evaluate novel risk factors for PEB, two methods were used: Multivariate logistic regression and decision tree. By univariate logistic regression, PEB (as the dependent variable) and 13 independent variables were evaluated. Four variables were found to be statistically significant: Age at ERCP (years) (OR, 1.027, 95%CI: 0.995-1.060,P= 0.096); Tandem EUS/ERCP (YesvsNo) (OR, 4.130, 95%CI: 1.494-12.084,P= 0.007); Tandem EUS/ERCP with FNA (YesvsNo) (OR, 13.984, 95%CI: 1.552-8.925,P< 0.001); ERCP duration (minutes) (OR, 1.011, 95%CI: 1.001-1.022,P= 0.034) (Table 2). Both appropriateness of prophylaxis administration and actual prophylaxis administration were not shown to increase the risk for PEB (Table 2). We elected and entered three variables (ERCP duration, age at ERCP and tandem EUS/ERCP with FNA) into a decision tree. In this preliminary model the cut points were age ≥ 75 years and ERCP duration ≥ 60 min (not shown). Therefore, we re-analyzed these variables as dichotomous variables in the univariate logistic regression (Table 2). The three mentioned variables were entered to a stepwise multivariate logistic regression along with "antibiotic prophylaxis" as a possible confounder (Table 2). All three factors were significant risk factors: Age at ERCP ≥ 75 years (OR, 3.780, 95%CI: 1.519-9.408,P= 0.004); Tandem EUS/ERCP with FNA (OR, 14.528, 95%CI: 3.571-59.095,P< 0.001); ERCP duration ≥ 60 min (OR, 5.396, 95%CI: 1.86-15.656,P= 0.002). Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis was not a significant beneficial factor.

    In the second method we entered the selected 3 variables along with "antibiotic prophylaxis" as a possible confounder into a decision tree model (Figure 5). If EUS with FNA preceded ERCP, the probability for PEB was 31%. If not, but the duration of the ERCP was equal to or longer than 60 min, the probability for PEB was 10%. If the duration was less than 60 min and no FNA was preformed but the age of the patient equal or greater than 75 years, the probability for PEB was 6% without prophylaxis and 0% with prophylaxis. If the patient did not have any risk factor, the probability for PEB was 1% regardless of prophylaxis administration.

    The area under the roc curve of the logistic regression model was 0.766 and the area under the roc curve of the decision tree model was 0.778 (Figure 6).

    DISCUSSION

    The rate of bacteremia in our study was 3.7%. Similar rates of 3.56% and 3.1% were described in studies by Duet al[5]and Kwaket al[6]respectively, and can be explained by a uniform definition of PEB occurring up to 7 days from ERCP, and matching inclusion and exclusion criteria that omit patients with suspected pre-ERCP bacteremia or scheduled antibiotic therapy. Much higher rates of bacteremia were described by Thosaniet al[7]but in that study blood cultures were actively obtained from all patients regardless of their clinical condition. Moreover, all patients in that study underwent Spyglass choledochoscopy which was proved to be a risk factor for PEB by itself. Supported by Two statistical models (stepwise multivariate logistic regression (ROC, 0.766) and a decision tree model (ROC, 0.778), three independent risk factors for PEB were found in the current study: ERCP duration ≥ 60 min, age at ERCP ≥ 75 years and Tandem EUS/ERCP with FNA. According to the decision tree model, without any risk factors the probability for PEB was 1% regardless of prophylaxis administration.

    As in our study, Longer duration of ERCP was also found to be an independent risk factor in the Swedish GallRiks registry[3]where procedures over 30 min carried a higher rate of overall complications (OR, 1.54, 95%CI: 1.43–1.65)[3]. In contrast, Thosaniet al[7]found that total ERCP procedure time had no effect on PEB rate. This discrepancy, again, might be explained by the different nature of the studies, where in the last study patients had a more invasive procedure which influenced the rate of overall PEB and, most likely, affected risk factors. As for the patients' age, the Swedish GallRiks registry[3]found age below 70 years to be a significant risk factor for overall complications (OR, 1.26, 95%CI: 1.18–1.35)[3]while in our study, being older than 75years was an independent risk factor for PEB with odds ratio of 3.780 (1.519-9.408,P= 0.004). This dis-concordance results from different outcome variables. In the Swedish registry the outcome was post-ERCP 30-d overall adverse event rates (including pancreatitis, cholangitis, abscess formation, and perforation). The authors do not describe the prevalence of each complication, but there were 646 patients with septic complications out of 2729 cases with overall complications (23.7% of overall complication events). This can have a major effect on the risk factors. For instance, post-ERCP pancreatitis is well associated with younger age. In accordance to our study, Thosaniet al[7]demonstrated that patients with sustained PEB were significantly older than patients who had no documented bacteremia (73 ± 3vs61 ± 2,P= 0.0078). Our third independent risk factor for PEB was tandem ERCP and EUS procedures with FNA from a solid lesion. This was the most influential risk factor with a probability of 30% to result in PEB according to the decision tree model and odds ratio of 14.528 (95%CI: 3.571-59.095,P< 0.001) according to the multivariate analysis. Three studies found that the risk of bacteremia after EUS FNA of solid lesions of the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract is similar to that for routine endoscopic procedures for which antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended[8,9]. As a result, the ASGE guidelines[1], recommend against administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to EUS and FNA from a solid mass. However, very scarce data exist regarding bacteremia after tandem EUS-ERCP procedures. In a study by Gornalet al[10], 3/51 (5.9%) patients had bacteremia after a combined EUS and ERCP procedure. FNA from a suspected malignant tumor was performed in 33 (60%) of all EUS procedures. Study population included both patients with benign disease (choledocholithiasis) and malignant disease among which some had EUS guided biliary drainage (16 procedures). All patients received prophylactic antibiotics. Data regarding bacteremia in each subgroup is not available but overall it seems higher than ERCP alone, as this rate of 5.6% occurred despite a uniform prophylactic antibiotics strategy. It is still questionable if the most influential factor contributing to higher bacteremia rate in that study was the EUS itself, the FNA or the biliary drainage.

    Table 2 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression

    Figure 3 Appropriateness of antibiotic administration. A: Categorization of antibiotic prophylaxis appropriateness according to ASGE guidelines; B: Subcategorization of prophylaxis appropriateness among cases who were actually administrated with antibiotics and those who were not.

    Figure 4 Sub-categorization of prophylaxis administration in each category of prophylaxis appropriateness among cases with or without post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography bacteremia. ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

    Our study showed predominantlyEnterobacteriaceaePEB (1.8%). Nevertheless, second in line was ESBL PEB (1.3%). There is a global rise in the prevalence of resistant bacterial strains possibly due to overuse of antibiotics. In a Japanese study[11], biliary drug resistant bacteria was more prevalent in the group receiving antibiotic prophylaxis compared to controls (29.3%vs5.7%,P= 0.006). Performance of biliary drainage further increased the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria in both groups, but the difference between them remained statistically significant (36.4%vs10.0%,P= 0.030). This implies that prophylactic antibiotic treatment should not be given universally and efforts should be made to accurately recognize the patients or the type of procedure in which it deems necessary.

    Figure 5 Decision tree model for the outcome of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography bacteremia. PEB: Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography bacteremia. ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; FNA: Fine needle aspiration.

    Figure 6 Receiver operating characteristic curves of the logistic regression model (broken line, AUC, 0.766) and the decision tree model (continuous line, AUC, 0.778). ROC: Receiver operating characteristic.

    Our study has a few limitations most of them are due to its retrospective nature. However, since the data was documented prospectively and the collection of data was very thorough, missing data was very scarce. Furthermore, the study was not randomized and antibiotic administration was according to the treating physician discretion. Nevertheless, this allowed us to investigate compliance with ASGE guidelines and the association with PEB cases.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, PEB is consistently reported in the literature regardless of antibiotic prophylaxis. Moreover, there is upward trend in the emergence of resistant bacteria. Antibiotics administration is a double edge sword, too little will result in PEB, while too much will result in side effects and resistant bacteria. Thus, better classification of risk factors is required. In our study, ERCP duration over 1-hour, Tandem EUS-ERCP with FNA and age above 75 years were found to be significant risk factors for PEB by two independent statistical models. These factors should be further evaluated as valid indications for prophylactic antibiotic treatment before ERCP.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    亚洲成人久久性| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 国产成人福利小说| 午夜精品在线福利| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 精品久久久久久,| a级毛片a级免费在线| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 少妇丰满av| 成在线人永久免费视频| 欧美3d第一页| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 岛国在线免费视频观看| svipshipincom国产片| 成人国产综合亚洲| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 很黄的视频免费| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 久久中文看片网| 中国美女看黄片| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 嫩草影院入口| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看 | 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 变态另类丝袜制服| 很黄的视频免费| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 999久久久国产精品视频| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 香蕉国产在线看| 亚洲在线观看片| 99视频精品全部免费 在线 | 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 国产三级在线视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 久久精品91蜜桃| 美女黄网站色视频| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 香蕉丝袜av| www国产在线视频色| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 日本一二三区视频观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 搡老岳熟女国产| av视频在线观看入口| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 精品国产三级普通话版| 国产精品久久视频播放| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 午夜影院日韩av| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| netflix在线观看网站| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 舔av片在线| www国产在线视频色| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 午夜a级毛片| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 波多野结衣高清作品| 久9热在线精品视频| 成人精品一区二区免费| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 国产高清videossex| 欧美三级亚洲精品| or卡值多少钱| 国产激情久久老熟女| av天堂中文字幕网| 久久香蕉国产精品| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 欧美日韩黄片免| 床上黄色一级片| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| av女优亚洲男人天堂 | cao死你这个sao货| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 999精品在线视频| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 国产精品永久免费网站| 午夜福利高清视频| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 亚洲在线观看片| 97碰自拍视频| 免费看十八禁软件| netflix在线观看网站| 午夜福利欧美成人| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 色综合婷婷激情| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 综合色av麻豆| 国产高清videossex| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | av片东京热男人的天堂| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 成人三级做爰电影| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 无人区码免费观看不卡| 小说图片视频综合网站| 舔av片在线| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 在线永久观看黄色视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 不卡av一区二区三区| 欧美午夜高清在线| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 成在线人永久免费视频| 久久久精品大字幕| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 午夜激情欧美在线| av天堂中文字幕网| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 中国美女看黄片| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 观看美女的网站| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 午夜激情欧美在线| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 色av中文字幕| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 久久久久久人人人人人| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 成人18禁在线播放| 精品久久久久久,| 毛片女人毛片| 黄色日韩在线| 观看美女的网站| 两个人看的免费小视频| 亚洲国产看品久久| 国产美女午夜福利| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 久久中文字幕一级| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产真实乱freesex| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 97碰自拍视频| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 天堂动漫精品| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看 | 午夜福利在线观看吧| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 99热只有精品国产| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产精品久久视频播放| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产高清激情床上av| 一进一出抽搐动态| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 一a级毛片在线观看| 在线观看日韩欧美| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 亚洲av美国av| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产不卡一卡二| 日韩有码中文字幕| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看 | 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 国产激情久久老熟女| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 露出奶头的视频| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 精品日产1卡2卡| 午夜福利高清视频| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| www.精华液| 国产av在哪里看| 午夜精品在线福利| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 成年版毛片免费区| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 欧美zozozo另类| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 免费看日本二区| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 无限看片的www在线观看| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 成人18禁在线播放| 草草在线视频免费看| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 午夜视频精品福利| 午夜精品在线福利| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 9191精品国产免费久久| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 午夜福利在线在线| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 97碰自拍视频| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 三级毛片av免费| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 无限看片的www在线观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 日日夜夜操网爽| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 97碰自拍视频| 在线看三级毛片| ponron亚洲| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 成在线人永久免费视频| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 99久久国产精品久久久| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 亚洲国产色片| 91字幕亚洲| 亚洲国产色片| 国产乱人视频| 午夜激情欧美在线| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 在线观看一区二区三区| 日本三级黄在线观看| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲av美国av| 99热精品在线国产| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 国产精品,欧美在线| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| svipshipincom国产片| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 国产高清激情床上av| www.精华液| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 美女黄网站色视频| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 综合色av麻豆| 国产免费男女视频| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 亚洲五月天丁香| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 一级黄色大片毛片| 国产精华一区二区三区| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看 | 美女大奶头视频| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 欧美在线黄色| 久久伊人香网站| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 欧美午夜高清在线| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 亚洲国产欧美网| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看 | 欧美在线黄色| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 久久中文看片网| 久久久精品大字幕| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 超碰成人久久| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 国产99白浆流出| 日韩有码中文字幕| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 91麻豆av在线| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 国产高清videossex| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 成人欧美大片| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 一本精品99久久精品77| 九色成人免费人妻av| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 黄色成人免费大全| 毛片女人毛片| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 国产高清激情床上av| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 国产熟女xx| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 99热6这里只有精品| 美女大奶头视频| svipshipincom国产片| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 99国产精品99久久久久| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 99视频精品全部免费 在线 | 少妇丰满av| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 少妇的逼水好多| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 免费观看人在逋| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 最好的美女福利视频网| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 日本a在线网址| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 观看美女的网站| 黄色成人免费大全| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| av视频在线观看入口| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 色在线成人网| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 国产成人精品无人区| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 精品日产1卡2卡| 99热只有精品国产| 亚洲无线观看免费| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产日本99.免费观看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 在线观看一区二区三区| 日日夜夜操网爽| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 久久精品91蜜桃| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 全区人妻精品视频| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 丰满的人妻完整版| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 亚洲国产色片| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 欧美zozozo另类| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 精品人妻1区二区| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 亚洲中文av在线| 欧美日韩精品网址| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 少妇丰满av| 国产精品野战在线观看| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 亚洲成人久久性| 精品日产1卡2卡| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产精品久久视频播放| 精品人妻1区二区| 久久人妻av系列| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 美女黄网站色视频| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 日韩免费av在线播放| 久久伊人香网站| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 国产美女午夜福利| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 在线国产一区二区在线| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 在线视频色国产色| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 亚洲 国产 在线| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 久久香蕉精品热| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 不卡av一区二区三区| 成人av在线播放网站| 国产高清激情床上av| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 国产成人av激情在线播放| 欧美激情在线99| 亚洲 国产 在线| 九色国产91popny在线| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 日本a在线网址| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| av视频在线观看入口| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产三级在线视频| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 免费看十八禁软件| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 少妇的逼水好多| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 日本 av在线| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 丰满的人妻完整版| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热|