• <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

    黄色 视频免费看| 俺也久久电影网| 波多野结衣高清作品| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| avwww免费| av国产免费在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 在线播放国产精品三级| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 宅男免费午夜| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 精品国产三级普通话版| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 中文资源天堂在线| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 91av网一区二区| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产高清三级在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 不卡av一区二区三区| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 成人av在线播放网站| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 99re在线观看精品视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人 | 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 欧美日韩黄片免| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 成在线人永久免费视频| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 亚洲激情在线av| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 国产激情久久老熟女| 国产高清三级在线| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 国产高潮美女av| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 夜夜爽天天搞| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 小说图片视频综合网站| 99久久精品热视频| 香蕉国产在线看| av黄色大香蕉| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 亚洲激情在线av| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 欧美日韩精品网址| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 9191精品国产免费久久| 成人三级黄色视频| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 亚洲国产看品久久| 嫩草影院入口| 亚洲第一电影网av| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 日韩有码中文字幕| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 色综合站精品国产| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 99国产精品99久久久久| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 久久精品人妻少妇| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 精品人妻1区二区| 极品教师在线免费播放| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 久久久久性生活片| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 少妇丰满av| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 国产精华一区二区三区| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| www.自偷自拍.com| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 免费av不卡在线播放| 97超视频在线观看视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| svipshipincom国产片| 日本成人三级电影网站| 香蕉av资源在线| 禁无遮挡网站| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美3d第一页| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 变态另类丝袜制服| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 精品福利观看| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| www日本黄色视频网| 亚洲av美国av| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 午夜精品在线福利| 校园春色视频在线观看| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 熟女电影av网| 日本免费a在线| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 麻豆av在线久日| 成人欧美大片| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 两性夫妻黄色片| 高清在线国产一区| av天堂在线播放| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 99热精品在线国产| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 日日夜夜操网爽| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| www日本黄色视频网| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 91麻豆av在线| 97碰自拍视频| 久久九九热精品免费| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 精品电影一区二区在线| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 免费看日本二区| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 美女免费视频网站| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 午夜两性在线视频| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| www日本黄色视频网| 1024手机看黄色片| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 综合色av麻豆| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 欧美激情在线99| 窝窝影院91人妻| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 久久这里只有精品中国| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 国产综合懂色| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 免费观看人在逋| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲激情在线av| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 身体一侧抽搐| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产成人福利小说| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 草草在线视频免费看| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 最好的美女福利视频网| 1024手机看黄色片| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 成人18禁在线播放| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 青草久久国产| 精品福利观看| 欧美zozozo另类| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 日本与韩国留学比较| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| kizo精华| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 免费观看在线日韩| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 变态另类丝袜制服| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 精品久久久久久久久av| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看 | 级片在线观看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 成人二区视频| ponron亚洲| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 综合色丁香网| 搞女人的毛片| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 久久久色成人| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 国产精品久久视频播放| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 亚洲在久久综合| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 日本一本二区三区精品| 黑人高潮一二区| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 午夜日本视频在线| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 色5月婷婷丁香| 日韩强制内射视频| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 欧美日本视频| 我要搜黄色片| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 嫩草影院精品99| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 高清在线视频一区二区三区 | 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 午夜福利高清视频| 国产美女午夜福利| 午夜福利在线在线| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 99久久人妻综合| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 亚洲图色成人| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 国产精品.久久久| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 一级毛片我不卡| 熟女电影av网| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 国产乱来视频区| 免费看a级黄色片| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 日本色播在线视频| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 国产乱来视频区| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 国产高清三级在线| 97在线视频观看| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 综合色丁香网| 黄色日韩在线| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 91久久精品电影网| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 99久久人妻综合| 亚洲av男天堂| 成人欧美大片| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 我要搜黄色片| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 七月丁香在线播放| 日本三级黄在线观看| 久久久久久伊人网av| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 伦精品一区二区三区| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 国产精品一及| 赤兔流量卡办理| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 久久久久久伊人网av| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 欧美色视频一区免费| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 亚洲在线观看片| 99久久精品热视频| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 97超视频在线观看视频| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 久久久久久久久中文| 亚洲av一区综合| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产精品.久久久| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 青春草国产在线视频| www日本黄色视频网| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 日本熟妇午夜| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 男人舔奶头视频| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 超碰97精品在线观看| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 日韩强制内射视频| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 在线观看一区二区三区| 国产成人精品一,二区| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 大香蕉久久网| 久久久色成人| 日本色播在线视频| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 嫩草影院精品99| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 成人av在线播放网站| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲内射少妇av| 久久久久久久久久成人| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 在现免费观看毛片| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 九草在线视频观看| 国产真实乱freesex| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 永久网站在线| 国产一级毛片在线| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 久久午夜福利片| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 国产视频首页在线观看| 在线观看66精品国产| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 午夜a级毛片| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲在久久综合| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 天堂网av新在线| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 99久国产av精品| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 少妇高潮的动态图| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 亚洲综合精品二区| 深夜a级毛片| 99热精品在线国产| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 午夜日本视频在线| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 变态另类丝袜制服| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 人妻系列 视频| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 99久久精品热视频| 亚洲无线观看免费| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 日韩高清综合在线| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说 | 久久这里只有精品中国| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 午夜精品在线福利| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 免费观看的影片在线观看| av国产免费在线观看| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 久久6这里有精品| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 观看免费一级毛片| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产极品天堂在线| 久久久精品大字幕| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 国产精品野战在线观看| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 日本色播在线视频| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 性色avwww在线观看| 黄片wwwwww| 久久久久久久久中文| 99久国产av精品国产电影|