• <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 ?

    High mortality associated with gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection in liver transplant recipients undergoing immunosuppression reduction

    2021-01-15 09:01:40FangChenXiaoYunPangChuanShenLongZhiHanYuXiaoDengXiaoSongChenJianJunZhangQiangXiaYongBingQian
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2020年45期

    Fang Chen, Xiao-Yun Pang, Chuan Shen, Long-Zhi Han, Yu-Xiao Deng, Xiao-Song Chen, Jian-Jun Zhang, Qiang Xia, Yong-Bing Qian

    Abstract

    Key Words: Immunosuppressive therapy; Liver transplantation; Bloodstream infection; Multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterium

    INTRODUCTION

    Bacterial infections continue to be the most common infectious complication after liver transplantation (LT), usually within 2 mo after LT[1]. Bloodstream infections (BSI) account for 19%-46% of all major infections after LT[2-5]and are associated with a mortality rate of nearly 40%[6].

    Several factors are known to be associated with BSI after LT in adults, including intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, retransplantation, longer duration of catheterization, and biliary complication. Immunosuppression (IS) is the single most important factor contributing to the incidence of infections in transplant recipients[7]. The commonly used immunosuppressive agents after LT include calcineurin inhibitor, such as tacrolimus (0.1-0.15 mg/kg/d in 2 doses) or ciclosporin (6-8 mg/kg/d in 2 doses), mycophenolate mofetil (500-1000 mg, bid), sirolimus (2 mg/d), and corticosteroids (induction with high dose methylprednisolone 500-1000 mg intravenously, followed by tapering over 5 d to maintenance with prednisone 5-20mg/d). The management of IS therapy during infection after LT is highly controversial, although IS reduction (partially discontinue or reduce the dosage of at least one IS agent) or complete withdrawal may be a generally accepted option in lifethreatening infections. To date, only few studies have assessed the impact of IS reduction or complete withdrawal of immunosuppressive therapy on infection outcomes in LT recipients[8,9]. In these studies, researchers reported that immunosuppressive agents may be discontinued completely in kidney transplantation recipients since hemodialysis is an effective option in case of rejection. In contrast, complete discontinuation of IS is highly dangerous in liver transplantation because it may lead to graft loss and patient death.

    This study aimed to examine the management of immunosuppressive therapy during bacterial BSI in LT recipients in the Department of Liver Surgery, Renji Hospital during a 2-year period and the effect of temporary IS withdrawal on 30 d mortality of recipients presenting with severe infection.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study design and population

    A retrospective single-center observational cohort study was conducted in the LT recipients diagnosed with BSI in Department of Liver Surgery, Renji Hospital from January 2016 through December 2017. Overall, 1297 LT recipients were identified, including 786 children (650 Living donors and 136 deceased donors) and 511 adults. All the enrolled LT recipients satisfied the inclusion criteria: (1) 18 to 75 years of age; and (2) With diagnosis of bloodstream infection confirmed by blood culture. The patients were excluded if infection was localized or in the brain or patients died on the day of surgery. Seventy patients with 74 episodes of BSI were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. All donor organs registered in the database were donated voluntarily. No donor organs were obtained from executed prisoners.

    Patient charts and in-hospital records were carefully reviewed to collect study variables and fill in the pre-determined case reports. The researchers systematically checked the integrity of the data before importing it into the database. The follow-up period was at least 180 d after the onset of index BSI. The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by our institutional review board (Approval No. KY2019-160).

    Antimicrobial prophylaxis

    The perioperative prophylactic antimicrobial therapy included intravenous ampicillin (120 mg/kg/d, q6h) and cefotaxime (120 mg/kg/d, q6h) within 1 h before LT and lasting for 3-5 d. Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) nasal colonization was routinely screened when the patient was included on transplant waiting list and transferred to liver intensive care unit after the operation. Alternative regimen including vancomycin may be considered for the patients with a history of MRSA infection or colonization. The surgeon may modify the prophylactic regimen according to the history of infectious disease based on the experience of our center. Oral acyclovir or valganciclovir after intravenous ganciclovir was administered for prevention of cytomegalovirus. Antiviral prophylaxis and hepatitis B immunoglobulin therapy were given to the patients undergoing LT for managing hepatitis B cirrhosis. Routine antifungal prophylaxis was only applicable to the patients at high risk of invasive aspergillosis or candidiasis, as described elsewhere[10].

    Immunosuppression strategy

    Standard IS regimens include high-dose prednisone and basiliximab induction, followed by tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid, and prednisone. For the patients with unremarkable post-transplant process, steroids were withdrawn 3-6 mo after LT. A mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor was added to the treatment regimen after the first month of transplantation if patients were at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver biopsy was performed in case of elevated transaminases or laboratory results indicative of unexplained cholestasis.

    The target serum level of tacrolimus was 8-12 ng/mL during the first month of LT and 6-8 ng/mL during the first 6 mo of LT. The target serum level of cyclosporin was 200-250 mg/mL during the first month and 150-200 mg/mL in the first 6 mo of LT.

    Definitions

    BSI was defined as the isolation of pathogenic microorganisms from at least one blood culture specimen. Positive blood culture from two separate sites was required for the skin flora associated with contamination. Polymicrobial BSI was defined as two or more microorganisms isolated from the same one blood culture specimen. Intraabdominal infections include peritonitis, peritoneal abscess, and cholangitis occurring more than 30 d after surgery. BSI was classified as secondary BSI when the pathogens from blood sample originated from the infection in other body site.

    BSI source was determined according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention criteria[11]and considered as primary source when no identifiable source was available.

    Multi-drug resistance (MDR) was defined as acquired non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial classes. Carbapenem-resistantEnterobacteriaceaewas defined by current Center for Disease Control and Prevention criteria asEnterobacteriaceaestrains resistant to at least one carbapenem. For all the Gram-negative isolates, carbapenemase production (Klebsiella pneumoniaecarbapenemase, New Delhi metallo-b-lactamase, OXA-23, and OXA-51) was confirmed by simplex ‘in-house’ polymerase chain reaction assays with specific primers, including:blaKPc-related sequences (5‘-TCTGGACCGCTGGGAGCTGG-3’, forward and 5’-TGCCCGTTGACGCCCAATCC-3’, reverse);blaOXA-23-related sequences (5’-GATCGGATTGGAGAACCAGA-3’, forward and 5’-ATTTCTGACCGCATTTCCAT-3‘, reverse), andblaNDM-related sequences 5’-GGTTTGGCGATCTGGTTTTC-3’, forward and 5’-CGGAATGGCTCATCACGATC-3’, reverse). Community-acquired BSI was defined as when positive blood culture was taken within 48 h since hospital admission. Hospital acquired BSI was defined as a positive blood culture obtained from patients who had been hospitalized for 48 h or longer.

    For the management of immunosuppressive therapy during BSI episodes, we recorded the changes of index blood culture over a period of 7-10 d. Changes of immunosuppressive therapy were classified as follows: (1) IS was withdrawn completely when all immunosuppressive drugs were discontinued simultaneously; (2) IS therapy was partially discontinued when at least one immunosuppressive drug (steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors) was discontinued; (3) IS was reduced when the dosage of at least one immunosuppressive drug was reduced by a minimum of 50%; and (4) IS reduction was defined as at least one of the above situations.

    Data collection

    All relevant data were collected from the enrolled patients, including demographic data, etiology of liver disease, biopsy-confirmed rejection or medical interventions for elevated liver transaminase, and/or re-transplantation within 90 d after BSI. BSI data included the pathogenic bacterial isolates and their susceptibility patterns, empiric antibiotic treatment, as well as appropriateness and duration of antibiotic treatment. IS data included the dosage, serum level of immunosuppressive agents, and time and duration of discontinuation.

    Statistical analysis

    Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS Advanced Statistics Modules, version 20.0 (SPSS, Armonk, NY, United States). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the effect of MDR infection on patient survival after LT. The normally distributed continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared by Student'st-test. All other non-normally distributed continuous data were presented as median [interquartile range (IQR)] and compared by Mann-WhitneyUtest.

    Univariate analysis was applied to determine the risk factors for 30 d mortality in LT recipients with BSI. Only the variables showingP< 0.10 in the univariate analysis were tested in multivariate analysis. Stepwise variable logistic regression model was utilized to identify the independent risk factors for 30 d mortality of Gram-negative bacterial (GNB) infections.

    RESULTS

    A total of 74 episodes of BSI were identified in 70 LT recipients in the 2-year period. Most of the patients (53, 75.7%) were males with a median (IQR) age of 48 (40-51) years. The etiology of liver disease was mainly hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis (33/70, 47.1%) and hepatocellular carcinoma (20/70, 28.6%) (Table 1). The 74 episodes of BSI were classified into Gram-positive bacterial (GPB) infections (45 episodes in 42 patients) and GNB infections (29 episodes in 28 patients) based on the Gram staining of the pathogenic bacteria.

    Characteristics of BSI episodes

    The median (IQR) time from LT to the onset of BSI was 6 (3-20) d. Majority (67, 90.5%) of the BSI episodes occurred within 180 d after LT and were hospital acquired (94.8%). The BSI source was surgical wound (47.6%), primary (23.8%), respiratory tract (14.3%), biliary tract (11.9%), central venous catheter (4.8%), urinary tract, and intra-abdominal (2.1%) in GPB group. Intra-abdominal infection (32.1%) was the primary site of BSI, followed by biliary tract (25.0%), urinary tract (21.4%), respiratory tract (17.9%), primary (10.7%), and central venous catheter (7.1%) in GNB group. GNB group showed numerically longer withdrawal time than GPB group (12.6 dvs6.3 d) (Table 1).

    The median (IQR) time from the day of transplantation (day 0) to onset of BSI was 4 (1-6) d in GPB group (n= 45) and 12 (8-41) d in GNB group (n= 29). The distribution of bacterial species is presented in Table 2. The isolates in GPB group included coagulasenegativeStaphylococcus(n= 24),Enterococcus faecalis(n= 4),Staphylococcus aureus(n= 3),Enterococcus faecium(n= 4), andStreptococcus(n= 2). The pathogenic isolates in GNB group were mostly antibiotic resistant (n= 22, 75.9%). The etiological agents wereKlebsiella pneumoniae(n= 11, including eight carbapenemase-producing strains and one pandrug resistant strain),Acinetobacter baumannii(n= 7, all carbapenemaseproducing strains),Escherichia coli(n= 5, including two ESBL-producing strains and one extensively drug-resistant strain), andPseudomonas aeruginosa(n= 3, including two multi-drug resistant strains and one carbapenemase-producing strain).

    Management of immunosuppressive therapy

    IS reduction was found in 28 (41.2%) cases, specifically 5 cases (5/28, 17.9%) in GPB group and 23 cases in GNB group. As for GPB BSIs, dosage reduction was identified in 2 patients (all tacrolimus), and complete IS withdrawal in 3 patients. In the LT recipients with GNB BSIs, dosage reduction (tacrolimus, steroids, ciclosporin, and/or mycophenolate) was made in six patients. At least one immunosuppressive drug was discontinued in one patient. Both dosage reduction and discontinuation of at least one drug were identified in one patient. Complete IS withdrawal was found in 15 patients.

    Outcome analysis

    Fifty-seven patients completely recovered from infectious complications, including 40 (95.2%) in GPB group and 17 (60.7%) in GNB group. The 180 d all-cause mortality rate was 18.6% (13/70). The 2 deaths in GPB group were due to graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The 11 deaths in GNB group were attributed to worsening infection secondary to IS withdrawal. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the patients with MDR GNB infections had significantly lower 90 d survival rate than the patients without MDR GNB infections (50%vs100%, log-rank test,P= 0.03) after onset of BSI.

    Three patients (7.1%) developed suspected rejection episodes in GPB group, while seven patients (25%) developed rejection episodes in GNB group.

    In patients with GNB infections, patients who died within 30 d of infection diagnosis showed a higher prevalence of rejection, a higher risk ofKlebsiella pneumoniaeinfection, and a more frequent presentation with IS withdrawal; all of these differences reached statistical significance. No differences in the 30 d mortality were found, taking into account patient primary disease or based on the source of infection. In addition, there were no differences between the episodes in which the antimicrobials were used as empiric therapy or target therapy (Table 3).

    Univariate analysis showed that rejection within 90 d after BSI,K. pneumoniaeinfection, and complete IS withdrawal were significantly associated with 30 d mortality of GNB infections after LT. Multivariate analysis indicated that rejection within 90 d after BSI (P= 0.01) and complete IS withdrawal (P= 0.019) were independent predictors of 30 d mortality in patients with GNB infections (Table 4).

    DISCUSSION

    Our data indicate that BSI is a common complication in LT recipients. At least one BSI episode was identified in 14.5% (74/511) of LT recipients in the first year after transplantation. This is consistent with the previous reported incidence of 28%-46%[5,12]. Previous studies demonstrated that one important high risk factor for bacterial infection in patients after solid organ transplantation was post-transplant IS therapy[13,14], which was supported by a hypothesis that post-transplant IS can reduce inflammatory cascades. This is considered one of the main pathophysiological factors of sepsis. Therefore, it is a common option for clinicians to reduce or discontinue immunosuppressive therapy when transplant recipients experience severe infection.

    Table 1 Characteristics of liver transplant recipients with bloodstream infection in terms of bacterial pathogens, n (%)

    Nearly half of the LT recipients with BSI in our study were managed with either dosage reduction or discontinuation of IS treatment. Of the 28 patients managed with IS reduction, only 5 were managed with either dosage reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy in GPB group. Twenty-three patients were managed with either dosage reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy in GNB group. In addition, we found that IS withdrawal was common in the patients with MDR GNB infections and associated with increased risk of mortality. However, discontinuation of immunosuppressive regimens did not increase the risk of death in patients with GPB infection.

    Few studies are available to evaluate the effect of IS reduction on the outcome of patients with bacterial infection. Ma?ezet al[8]showed that 31 LT recipients discontinued immunosuppressive drugs temporarily because of severe opportunistic infection, and 41% of these patients died while in the hospital. However, none of them had BSI or sepsis. A recent study[15]described the management of immunosuppressive therapy at the time of diagnosis of BSI in LT recipients. Ninety cases (43%) were managed with “IS reduction”, which was associated with worse outcome in LT recipients with BSI. We also found the same negative correlation between IS reduction and 30 d mortality in patients with drug-resistant bacterial infection in GNB group. The patients with severe infections or septic shock in our center were more likely to be managed by lowering the dose of or withdrawing immunosuppressive agents, but such a practice may have led to the worse outcome.

    In patients with GPB BSI, the incidence of graft rejection was 7.1%, and mortality was 4.8% (n= 2). Both patients died from GVHD. In the patients with GNB BSI, the risk of graft rejection was earlier and higher (25.0%) and the mortality was 39.3%. All the deaths except one (GVHD) were due to worsening infection secondary to IS withdrawal. These findings suggest that IS less intense in those cases. The deaths were more likely associated with epidemiologic and technical-surgical factors. Another possible explanation is that IS reduction may put the patients at risk of graft rejection, which in turn leads to graft dysfunction, graft loss, or death[16].

    We found that all the BSI episodes occurred in the first 180 d after LT. This was consistent with the previous reports, which confirmed early-onset BSI and other complications[3,10,17-19]. Sgangaet al[20]reported that 28% of transplant recipients developed BSI in the first 60 d after LT. In a Japanese study, 34.3% of LT recipients developed BSI in the first 90 d after LT and had a higher mortality rate than the recipients without BSI[3]. Kimet al[2]also reported that recipients with early-onset BSI were at a significantly higher risk of mortality compared to those without infection or infection without bacteremia. Several factors have contributed to the increased risk of early bacterial infection, including complexity of surgical procedures, high level of IS due to rejection, multiple entries for microorganisms (e.g., incisions, catheters, and probes), and poor performance status[21-23].

    GPBs were previously considered to be the key BSI pathogens after transplantation[5,24,25]. However, current research identified GNBs as the predominant pathogens[26-28]. We found in this study that GPBs were more frequently isolated than GNBs (60.8%vs39.2%). Meanwhile, we found a high prevalence of infections caused by MDR GNB, includingAcinetobacter(24.14%), andEnterobacteriaceae(37.93%), mainly carbapenem-resistant strains. MDR GNB pathogens in LT recipients have increased worldwide, with a prevalence of over 50%. MDR GNB infections are associated with higher mortality rate than GPB infections[29,30]. Previous studies reported that MDR GNB infections were common in LT recipients[26,31,32]. A cohort study of 475 LT recipients demonstrated that MDR GNB infections were associated with higher mortality (50%)[13].

    The common pathogens of infection after LT includeE. coli,Klebsiella,Enterobacter, andS. marcescens[27,33].P. aeruginosaandA. baumanniiare also common causes of GNB infection. The prevalence of ESBL-producing GNB, carbapenem-resistantK. pneumoniae(CRKP), MDRAcinetobacter, and MDRPseudomonasare on the rise and are associated with higher rate of treatment failure[13]. Importantly, we found that infection due to MDR GNB was one of the strongest predictors of post-LT mortality. The 90 d mortality was as high as 50% for the patients with MDR GNB infections. These findings are consistent with two recent studies showing that when LT patients were infected with CRKP, the 1-year survival dropped dramatically from 86 % to 29 % andfrom 93% to 55%, respectively[34,35].

    Table 2 Distribution of the bacterial pathogens causing bloodstream infections in liver transplant recipients

    As prior studies reported[2,26,27], the most frequent sources of BSIs in our study were intra-abdominal and biliary tract in GNB group. Intra-abdominal infection largely occurred in the first 3 mo, while cholangitis was the major source of BSI at later time. Reduction of biliary complications was thought to be an important factor for lower incidence of bacteremia, especially in living-donor liver transplantation because biliary tract is one of the most common port of bacterial entry due to the complexity of liver transplantation procedures[2]. Similar to previous reports[36-38], the primary site of infection was not identified in 17.6% of the cases in this study, probably due to early proactive antibiotic therapy and the difficulty of identifying intra-abdominal and biliary sources. Georgeet al[38]reported that many episodes of primary bacteremia were associated with biliary leakage, hepatic infarction, or abdominal fluid. Bile leakage or biliary stenosis is a major postoperative complication, with an incidence of 10%-15% in deceased donor LT and 15%-30% in living transplantation recipients[39,40].

    There are some limitations in this study. Firstly, this is a retrospective single center and small size study. Secondly, the number of BSI episodes may have been underreported. Finally, variability in immunosuppressive management may exit when comparing our findings with the practice in other medical centers.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, IS reduction is surprisingly more common in cases of GNB than GPB BSIs in the LT recipients. MDR GNB infection may put LT recipients at higher risk of graft rejection and death than GPB infection. Rejection and complete IS withdrawal are the independent predictors for the 30 d mortality in patients with GNB infection. Complete IS withdrawal should be done cautiously due to increased risk of mortality in the LT recipients complicated with GNB infection. A multidisciplinary approach, timely and appropriate successful antimicrobial therapy, and source control, when necessary, may be safer and more effective than IS reduction therapy in recipients with BSI after LT.

    Table 3 Relationship of clinical and therapeutic variables with outcomes in patients with Gram-negative bacterial infections, n (%)

    Table 4 Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of risk factors for 30 d mortality after Gram-negative bacterial infections in liver transplant recipients

    Urinary tract 0.51 (0.063-4.146)0.529 Pathogen Klebsiella pneumoniae 5.165 (1.22-21.87)0.026 0.47 Acinetobacter baumannii 0.038 (0.00-125.635)0.428 Management of infection Empiric therapy 0.545 (0.13-2.282)0.406 Target therapy 1.539 (0.384-6.163)0.543 Source control 1.6 (0.197-13.018)0.661 Management of immunosuppressive therapy IS reduction 0.026 (0.0-12.782)0.249 Complete IS withdrawal 14.362 (1.818-113.46)0.012 12.65 (1.51-105.965)0.019 1Within 90 d after bloodstream infection. aHR: Adjusted hazard ratio; BSI: Bloodstream infection; CI: Confidence interval; HR: Hazard ratio; IS: Immunosuppression.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Bacterial infections continue to be the most common infectious complication after liver transplantation (LT), usually within 2 mo after LT. Immunosuppression (IS) is the single most important factor contributing to the incidence of infections in transplant recipients.

    Research motivation

    The management of IS therapy during infection after LT is highly controversial, although IS reduction (partially discontinue or reduce the dosage of at least one IS agent) or complete withdrawal may be a generally accepted option in life-threatening infections. Few studies are available on the management of IS treatment in the LT recipients complicated with infection.

    Research objectives

    To describe our experience in the management of IS treatment during bacterial bloodstream infection (BSI) in LT recipients and assess the effect of temporary IS withdrawal on 30 d mortality of recipients presenting with severe infection.

    Research methods

    A retrospective study was conducted with the patients diagnosed with BSI after LT in the Department of Liver Surgery, Renji Hospital from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017. All recipients diagnosed with BSI infections after LT were included in this study. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of risk factors for 30 d mortality was conducted in LT patients with Gram-negative bacterial (GNB) infections.

    Research results

    Seventy-four episodes of BSI were identified in 70 LT recipients, including 45 episodes of Gram-positive bacterial (GPB) infections in 42 patients and 29 episodes of Gramnegative bacterial infections in 28 patients. Overall, IS reduction (at least 50% dose reduction or cessation of one or more immunosuppressive agent) was made in 28 (41.2%) cases, specifically, in 5 (11.9%) cases with GPB infections and 23 (82.1%) cases with GNB infection. The 180 d all-cause mortality rate was 18.5% (13/70). The mortality rate in GNB group (39.3%, 11/28) was significantly higher than that in GPB group (4.8%, 2/42) (P= 0.001). All the deaths in GNB group were attributed to worsening infection secondary to IS withdrawal but the deaths in GPB group were all due to graft-versus-host disease. GNB group was associated with significantly higher incidence of intra-abdominal infection, IS reduction, and complete IS withdrawal than GPB group (P< 0.05). Cox regression showed that rejection (adjusted hazard ratio 7.021,P= 0.001) and complete IS withdrawal (adjusted hazard ratio 12.65,P= 0.019) were independent risk factors for 30 d mortality in patients with GNB infections after LT.

    Research conclusions

    IS reduction is more frequently associated with GNB infection than GPB infection in LT recipients. Complete IS withdrawal should be cautious due to increased risk of mortality in the LT recipients complicated with BSI.

    Research perspectives

    IS reduction may be a generally accepted option in life-threatening infections after LT. However, this practice must be discussed thoroughly, as it seems to be associated with worse outcome in patients with BSI. A multidisciplinary approach, timely and appropriate successful antimicrobial therapy, and source control, when necessary, may be safer and more effective than IS reduction therapy in recipients with BSI after LT.

    精品久久久精品久久久| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 曰老女人黄片| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 人人澡人人妻人| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 午夜免费激情av| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 在线天堂中文资源库| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲伊人色综图| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区 | 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 久久伊人香网站| 制服人妻中文乱码| 窝窝影院91人妻| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 曰老女人黄片| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 成人国产综合亚洲| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 夜夜爽天天搞| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 天堂动漫精品| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 88av欧美| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 一区二区三区精品91| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 少妇 在线观看| av视频免费观看在线观看| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 午夜久久久久精精品| 一级黄色大片毛片| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 校园春色视频在线观看| 麻豆成人av在线观看| av视频免费观看在线观看| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 午夜免费鲁丝| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 精品日产1卡2卡| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 国产在线观看jvid| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 在线播放国产精品三级| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 精品电影一区二区在线| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 精品福利观看| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 久99久视频精品免费| 色播在线永久视频| 精品久久久久久,| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 午夜久久久在线观看| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 操美女的视频在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 成人三级做爰电影| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 精品久久久久久,| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 午夜久久久在线观看| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 999久久久国产精品视频| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 两个人看的免费小视频| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 制服诱惑二区| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 成人三级黄色视频| 国产精品 国内视频| 久久人妻av系列| 黄色 视频免费看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 久久青草综合色| av中文乱码字幕在线| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 91大片在线观看| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 老司机靠b影院| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 深夜精品福利| 国产精品久久视频播放| 精品日产1卡2卡| 无限看片的www在线观看| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 99久久国产精品久久久| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 一级黄色大片毛片| 一a级毛片在线观看| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 免费少妇av软件| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 国产成人av教育| cao死你这个sao货| 中国美女看黄片| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 999久久久国产精品视频| 成人免费观看视频高清| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国产高清激情床上av| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 久久香蕉精品热| avwww免费| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 性欧美人与动物交配| 一本综合久久免费| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产成人精品在线电影| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| av天堂久久9| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 搡老岳熟女国产| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 久久草成人影院| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 久热这里只有精品99| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 91成人精品电影| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 国产单亲对白刺激| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 午夜福利,免费看| 免费看十八禁软件| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| av电影中文网址| 最好的美女福利视频网| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 在线免费观看的www视频| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 日本欧美视频一区| av天堂在线播放| 国产精品野战在线观看| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 91成年电影在线观看| 在线av久久热| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 成人三级黄色视频| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| av天堂久久9| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 免费看a级黄色片| 满18在线观看网站| 级片在线观看| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 国产片内射在线| 美女大奶头视频| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 不卡一级毛片| 香蕉国产在线看| 国产精品免费视频内射| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| av电影中文网址| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 级片在线观看| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| av天堂久久9| 一区福利在线观看| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 久久国产精品影院| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 国产高清有码在线观看视频 | 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 夜夜爽天天搞| 成人国产综合亚洲| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 99热只有精品国产| 91老司机精品| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 怎么达到女性高潮| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 国产精品野战在线观看| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 国产高清激情床上av| 校园春色视频在线观看| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 欧美中文综合在线视频| av视频免费观看在线观看| 精品久久久久久成人av| 国产高清激情床上av| 国产激情久久老熟女| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 成人国语在线视频| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 久久久久久大精品| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 成年版毛片免费区| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 很黄的视频免费| av中文乱码字幕在线| 国产区一区二久久| 国产野战对白在线观看| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 精品久久久久久成人av| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 黄片播放在线免费| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 久久 成人 亚洲| 久久久久久大精品| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 黄色 视频免费看| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 日本五十路高清| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | av天堂久久9| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 天堂√8在线中文| 一级毛片精品| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 丁香欧美五月| 午夜精品在线福利| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 久久中文字幕一级| 丝袜美足系列| 在线免费观看的www视频| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 十八禁网站免费在线| 成人18禁在线播放| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 欧美在线黄色| 伦理电影免费视频| 在线天堂中文资源库| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 黄色成人免费大全| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 国产99久久九九免费精品| videosex国产| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 久99久视频精品免费| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 久久青草综合色| 国产精品,欧美在线| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 色老头精品视频在线观看| 日韩欧美免费精品| 精品国产国语对白av| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 无限看片的www在线观看| 夜夜爽天天搞| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 黄色女人牲交| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 午夜精品在线福利| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 久久性视频一级片| 最好的美女福利视频网| 级片在线观看| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 久久九九热精品免费| 精品人妻1区二区| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看 | 久久性视频一级片| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| av天堂久久9| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 在线观看日韩欧美| 欧美在线黄色| 久久青草综合色| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 久久精品91蜜桃| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址 | 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 一进一出抽搐动态| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 999精品在线视频| 国产单亲对白刺激| 国产精品二区激情视频| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 国产成人精品无人区| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产野战对白在线观看| 9色porny在线观看| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 美女免费视频网站| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 搞女人的毛片| 国产av又大| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 国产成人欧美| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 午夜a级毛片| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 欧美日韩黄片免| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 成人三级黄色视频| 日日夜夜操网爽| 日本 欧美在线| 精品人妻1区二区| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 多毛熟女@视频| 91成年电影在线观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 久久精品影院6| 午夜激情av网站| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 搞女人的毛片| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 日本在线视频免费播放| 91精品三级在线观看| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 亚洲国产精品999在线| 99久久国产精品久久久| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 人妻久久中文字幕网| www.999成人在线观看| 色综合婷婷激情| 午夜福利免费观看在线| www日本在线高清视频| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 少妇 在线观看| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 老司机福利观看| 国产精品,欧美在线| 久久 成人 亚洲| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 欧美成人午夜精品| av福利片在线| 美女免费视频网站| 久久影院123| 视频区欧美日本亚洲|