• <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 ?

    Survival outcomes and predictors of mortality, re-bleeding and complications for acute severe variceal bleeding requiring balloon tamponade

    2022-09-01 02:43:40CharlotteKeungAparnaMorganSuongLeMarcusRobertsonPaulUrquhartMichaelSwan
    World Journal of Hepatology 2022年8期

    Charlotte Y Keung, Aparna Morgan, Suong T Le, Marcus Robertson, Paul Urquhart, Michael P Swan

    Charlotte Y Keung, Aparna Morgan, Suong T Le, Marcus Robertson, Michael P Swan, Department of Gastroenterology, Monash Health, Melbourne 3168, Victoria, Australia

    Charlotte Y Keung, Paul Urquhart, Department of Gastroenterology, Eastern Health, Melbourne 3128, Victoria, Australia

    Charlotte Y Keung, Suong T Le, Marcus Robertson, Department of Medicine, Monash University,Melbourne 3168, Victoria, Australia

    Suong T Le, Monash Digital Therapeutics and Innovation Laboratory, Monash University,Melbourne 3168, Victoria, Australia

    Abstract BACKGROUND Acute severe variceal bleeding (AVB) refractory to medical and endoscopic therapy is infrequent but associated with high mortality. Historical cohort studies from 1970-1980s no longer represent the current population as balloon tamponade is no longer first-line therapy for variceal bleeding; treatments including vasoactive therapies, intravenous antibiotics, endoscopic variceal band ligation are routinely used, and there is improved access to definitive treatments including transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. However, only a few studies from the current era exist to describe the practice of balloon tamponade, its outcomes,and predictors with a requirement for further updated information.AIM To describe current management of AVB requiring balloon tamponade and identify the outcomes and predictors of mortality, re-bleeding and complications.METHODS A retrospective multi-centre cohort study of 80 adult patients across two large tertiary health networks from 2008 to 2019 in Australia who underwent balloon tamponade using a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube (SBT) were included for analysis.Patients were identified using coding for balloon tamponade. The primary outcome of this study was all-cause mortality at 6 wk after the index AVB. Secondary outcomes included re-bleeding during hospitalisation and complications of balloon tamponade. Predictors of these outcomes were determined using univariate and multivariate binomial regression.RESULTS The all-cause mortality rates during admission and at 6-, 26- and 52 wk were 48.8%, 51.2% and 53.8%, respectively. Primary haemostasis was achieved in 91.3% and re-bleeding during hospitalisation occurred in 34.2%. Independent predictors of 6 wk mortality on multivariate analysis included the Model for Endstage Liver disease (MELD) score (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.06-1.41, P = 0.006),advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (OR 11.51, 95%CI 1.61-82.20, P = 0.015) and re-bleeding (OR 13.06, 95%CI 3.06-55.71, P < 0.001). There were no relevant predictors of re-bleeding but a large proportion in which this occurred did not survive 6 wk (76.0% vs 24%). Although mucosal trauma was the most common documented complication after SBT insertion (89.5%), serious complications from SBT insertion were uncommon (6.3%) and included 1 patient who died from oesophageal perforation.CONCLUSION In refractory AVB, balloon tamponade salvage therapy is associated with high rates of primary haemostasis with low rates of serious complications. Re-bleeding and mortality however, remain high.

    Key Words: Balloon tamponade; Acute variceal bleeding; Sengstaken-Blakemore tube; Mortality;Complications; Haemostasis

    lNTRODUCTlON

    Acute severe variceal bleeding (AVB) refractory to endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVBL) and injection therapy occurs infrequently in 10%-20% of variceal haemorrhage but is associated with significant mortality rates of over 30%[1]. In this situation, the main salvage strategy has traditionally involved balloon tamponade with various devices including the Sengstaken-Blakemore tube (SBT)[2],the Minnesota tube and the Linton-Nachlas tube, which are similar devices that differ in terms of the number of balloons and ports[3]. While covered self-expandable metallic oesophageal stents have more recently become available, with potential advantages of improved safety and efficacy over balloon tamponade[1,4], oesophageal stents are still not routinely available in many treating centres. Both these rescue techniques serve a temporising role while awaiting further definitive options including transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) or liver transplantation[5-7].

    Previous retrospective cohort studies published in the 1970s and 1980s demonstrated that balloon tamponade successfully achieved primary haemostasis in 40-98% of cases, however it was associated with a high risk of both re-bleeding (35%-70%) and procedural complications[8-12]. Importantly, the management of AVB has evolved significantly since this time and thus these studies are not reflective of current practice. For example, balloon tamponade is no longer employed as a first-line management option and endoscopic sclerotherapy has long been superseded by EVBL. In addition, the therapeutic armamentarium for AVB has significantly expanded and now encompasses vasoactive treatment,empiric antibiotics, endoscopic therapies and radiologic procedures such as TIPS and BRTO. Finally,expert opinion-based consensus guidelines for variceal bleeding are also now available[5,6]. Currently there is a paucity of literature examining the clinical outcomes of patients treated with current standards of care, who require balloon tamponade for AVB[13,14]. Subsequently this study aims to: (1) Describe the current clinical practice surrounding management of endoscopically uncontrollable AVB requiring balloon tamponade; (2) Identify the outcomes; and (3) Predictors of mortality, re-bleeding and complications of balloon tamponade.

    MATERlALS AND METHODS

    Study design

    A multi-centre retrospective cohort study was undertaken across Monash Health and Eastern Health,two large metropolitan tertiary health care services in Victoria, Australia. All consecutive adult patients(> 18 years) who underwent balloon tamponade using a SBT for refractory AVB between 1stJanuary 2008 until 31stDecember 2019 were included. Patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases-10 procedure code for gastro-oesophageal balloon tamponade. Data extracted from medical records included baseline demographic information, liver disease severity indicators, clinical and biochemical data relating to variceal bleeding, practice surrounding insertion and monitoring of balloon tamponade devices and clinical outcomes including re-bleeding, survival up to 52 wk and complications of both variceal bleeding and balloon tamponade. All patients were risk stratified using the AIMS65,Rockall, pre-endoscopy Rockall (pre-Rockall), Child-Pugh and Model for Endstage Liver disease(MELD) scores on admission prior to index gastroscopy.

    Acute variceal bleeding management protocols

    AVB was managed according to published United Kingdom and United States guidelines[5,6]. Patients with suspected variceal bleeding received intravenous (IV) antibiotics (ceftriaxone or piperacillintazobactam) and vasoactive therapy with either an octreotide infusion (50 microgram (mcg) bolus,followed by a 25-50 mcg/hour infusion) or IV terlipressin (0.85-1.7 mg 6 hourly). A restrictive blood transfusion policy is standard at the treating centres and patients typically receive packed red cells if their haemoglobin is < 70 g/L (or < 80 g/L in the presence of ischaemic heart disease) with a target haemoglobin level of 80-90 g/L. Endoscopy was performed in either a dedicated endoscopy suite or operating theatre with sedation administered by an anaesthetist in all cases. Bleeding oesophageal varices were treated with EVBL and bleeding gastric varices were treated with variceal obturation using histoacryl and lipiodol or thrombin. In cases of AVB not amenable to endoscopic therapy, both interventional radiology (including TIPS or BRTO) and upper gastrointestinal surgery services were available.

    Study outcome measures

    The primary outcome measure of this study was all-cause mortality after AVB requiring balloon tamponade which was assessed at 6 wk and followed up at 26 and 52 wk. Secondary outcomes assessed included re-bleeding after insertion of SBT and complications of balloon tamponade during the hospital admission. Primary haemostasis was defined as the clinical cessation of variceal bleeding after balloon tamponade during the index hospitalisation and re-bleeding defined as further bleeding after primary haemostasis was achieved upon removal or balloon deflation of the SBT. Patients without cirrhosis(non-cirrhotic portal hypertension) who required balloon tamponade for AVB were excluded from the predictors of mortality analyses but included in remaining analyses surrounding balloon tamponade practice.

    Ethics approval

    The Monash Health Human Research Ethics Committee assessed this study as low risk (RES-21-0000-218Q-70254) and did not require participant informed consent.

    Statistical analysis

    Descriptive statistics was used to analyse continuous variables expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous non-parametric variables, and absolute frequencies between groups for categorical variables. Analysis was performed on factors potentially contributing to death, re-bleeding and balloon tamponade complications using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher’s Exact Test for dichotamous variables. Univariate binomial regression was used to identify potential clinically relevant variables predictive of death, re-bleeding and complications and those that reached statistical significance (P< 0.10) were then included in a multivariate binomial regression analysis.Missing data was excluded from multivariate analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using licensed SPSS software (IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY:IBM Corp). Figures for survival analysis were prepared using licensed GraphPad Prism software(GraphPad Software for Windows, Version 9.0.0, Sand Diego, California).

    RESULTS

    Baseline characteristics

    Overall, there were 81 adult patients who required balloon tamponade with SBT for endoscopically uncontrollable AVB. Insufficient information was available for 1 patient who was subsequently excluded from the analysis (n =80). Cirrhosis was diagnosed in 75 (93.8%) patients but 5 (6.3%) had non-cirrhotic portal hypertension and were not included in the predictors of mortality analyses.

    Most of the patients were male (61, 76.3%) with a median age of 56 years (range 34 to 80 years). Most patients with cirrhosis had advanced cirrhosis with a median Child-Pugh score 9 (IQR 8-11) and median MELD score 17 (IQR 13-21). The most common aetiology of cirrhosis was alcohol-related liver disease(54, 72.0%) of which 34 (63.0%) were actively still consuming alcohol, followed by chronic hepatitis B or C (30, 40.0%) and then non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (7, 9.3%). Eleven (14.7%) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had Stage C (Advanced) or Stage D (Terminal) staging as per the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification[15].

    The presence of varices had been documented in 51 (63.8%) patients prior to the index bleed. Of these patients, 47.1% of these had prophylactic EVBL prior to the index AVB at a median duration of 3 wk prior (IQR 2-12 wk). Non-selective beta blocker use was documented in 23 (28.8%) patients at the time of variceal haemorrhage.

    The baseline characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1 which compares characteristics of those who survived and those who died at 6 wk after the index variceal bleed. Compared to patients who survived, patients who died were noted to have significantly higher Child-Pugh and MELD scores(P =0.004 andP< 0.001, respectively), international normalised ratio (P< 0.001), albumin (P =0.034),bilirubin (P =0.003), sodium (P =0.025), creatinine (P =0.014) and lactate levels (P =0.007) at the time of presentation to hospital. In addition, the diagnosis of HCC was significantly more prevalent in patients who died within 6 wk (P =0.019).

    Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients with cirrhosis requiring balloon tamponade for acute severe variceal bleeding comparing death and survival at 6 wk

    Emergency and endoscopic management of index variceal bleed

    Including all patients who required balloon tamponade (n =80), at presentation of the index variceal bleed, 48.8% (39) of patients were tachycardic with a heart rate over 100 beats/min and 28.7% (23) were hypotensive with a systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg. A reduced Glasgow Coma Scale score was recorded in 24 (30%) patients and 30% (24) required oxygen supplementation at concentrations of at least FiO2 35% for hypoxia. Almost all patients received vasoactive agent therapy with either terlipressin or octreotide (79, 98.8%) and IV antibiotics (77, 96.3%) in the emergency department. Most patients received vitamin K (65, 81.3%) and 16.5% (13 patients) received human prothrombin complex concentrate (Prothrombinex?) in an attempt to correct coagulopathy.

    Table 2 summarises the medical and endoscopic management of the index variceal bleed and the clinical practice surrounding insertion of SBT for salvage therapy. The median time to initial endoscopy after AVB was 6.8 h (IQR 4.2-19.0 h). The source of bleeding was noted to be oesophageal varices in 80.0% (64 patients) with 20.0% (16 patients) due to gastric varices. Initial endoscopic therapy was performed in 45 patients (56.4%). Insertion of balloon tamponade devices were performed by specialist endoscopists in all cases, most commonly during the initial gastroscopy. The indications for balloon tamponade with SBT were incomplete haemostasis (39, 48.8%), poor endoscopic views (26, 32.5%) or both (15, 18.8%). The SBT insertion approach was documented to be oral in 49 (61.3%) and nasal in 22(31.0%), while no documentation was available in 9 (11.3%). Confirmation of SBT position by either direct endoscopic vision or chest X-ray was documented in 80.5% of procedures. The gastric balloon was inflated in all cases with a median volume of 285 mL air (range 50-500 mL), while the oesophageal balloon was inflated in 22 (27.5%) cases with a median volume of 100 mL air (range 20-500 mL)(Table 2). Documentation of devices used to maintain traction on the inflated SBT was very inconsistent.Repeat gastroscopy was performed in 61 (76.3%) patients and generally occurred in the following 24 to 48 h after the index gastroscopy with repeat endoscopic therapy performed in 33.8% (27 patients).Patients that did not undergo repeat gastroscopy had rapidly deteriorated and died.

    Table 2 Management of index variceal bleed and characteristics around insertion of Sengstaken-Blakemore tube

    Mortality, re-bleeding and balloon tamponade complication outcomes

    The outcomes of mortality, re-bleeding and complications from balloon tamponade are summarised in Figure 1 and Table 3. Inpatient mortality was 48.8% (39 deaths), and the mortality rates at 6-, 26- and 52 wk were 48.8% (39 deaths), 51.2% (41 deaths) and 53.8% (43 deaths), respectively. The causes of death during the index inpatient hospitalisation included refractory bleeding with failure to achieve haemostasis (20, 51.3%), sepsis with multiorgan failure (14, 35.9%), aspiration pneumonia (3, 7.7%) and 1 patient died from an oesophageal perforation due to SBT (2.6%). This patient had his initial gastroscopy and SBT inserted in a regional hospital prior to transfer, where a chest X-ray revealed the gastric balloonwas either inflated or migrated into the oesophagus and caused perforation and mediastinitis.

    Figure 1 Schematic for mortality outcome at 52 wk for patients requiring SBT for acute severe variceal bleeding. SBT: Sengstaken-Blakemore tube; TIPS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.

    Table 3 Patient outcomes following Sengstaken-Blakemore Tube insertion

    The insertion of SBT successfully achieved primary haemostasis in 73 (91.3%) patients, with no survivors amongst those where this was not achieved. Re-bleeding occurred in 34.2% (25) after achieving primary haemostasis, of which further balloon tamponade was performed in 16 of these patients. Of the 25 patients who had experienced re-bleeding, the inpatient mortality rate was 76.0%.TIPS was performed in 17 (21.3%) patients at a median of 2.95 d from balloon tamponade insertion, of which 5 patients died. One patient underwent liver transplantation and survived.

    Complications associated with SBT insertion were documented in 19 (23.8%) patients. The most common complication (17, 89.5%) was superficial mucosal trauma without perforation which was managed conservatively. Only a few serious complications occurred in 5 patients (6.3%) and included aspiration pneumonia recorded in 4 patients (of which 2 died during the index hospitalisation) and 1 patient died from oesophageal perforation as mentioned above.

    Predictors of mortality, re-bleeding and complications of balloon tamponade

    As most patients who survived their hospital admission continued to survive to 52 wk after the index variceal bleed, the mortality rates and thus the predictors on univariate and multivariate analyses are very similar for all study time points. Subsequently results for predictors will be presented for the primary endpoint of 6 wk mortality after index variceal bleed for cirrhotic patients only (n =75).

    Upon univariate analyses, variables that significantly predicted 6 wk mortality included: Markers of liver disease severity (Child-Pugh score, MELD score, international normalised ratio, bilirubin, serum creatinine and sodium), pH and serum lactate, the presence of HCC, the AIMS65 score and re-bleeding.Of the validated upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scoring algorithms used to predict outcomes, only the AIMS65 score[16] reached significance at univariate analysis (OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.15- 3.35,P =0.014)while the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.86-1.15,P =0.767), pre-endoscopy and complete Rockall scores (both OR 1.44, 95%CI 0.86-2.43,P =0.168) were not significant[17-19]. Results of the univariate analyses are detailed in Table 4.

    Table 4 Predictors of 6 wk mortality after acute severe variceal bleeding requiring balloon tamponade

    To avoid collinearity, the only liver disease severity indicator used in the multivariate analysis was the MELD score. MELD scores of > 19 have been shown to predict 6 wk mortality of > 20% for AVB[20].Predictors of 6 wk mortality on multivariate analysis in this cohort showed that the MELD score, the presence of HCC and re-bleeding were statistically significant independent predictors.

    The survival curves over 52 wk for MELD score >19, HCC and re-bleeding are shown in Figures 2-4,respectively.

    Figure 2 Survival curve for Model for Endstage Liver disease score > 19 over 52 wk. MELD score: Model for end-stage liver disease score.

    Figure 3 Survival curve for hepatocellular carcinoma over 52 wk. HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma.

    Figure 4 Survival curve for re-bleeding over 52 wk.

    On univariate analysis, there were no relevant predictors for re-bleeding after salvage therapy using SBT for AVB. When comparing 6 wk outcomes in those that re-bled after primary haemostasis to those that did not, re-bleeding was resulted in significantly greater mortality (76.0%vs27.1%,P< 0.001), a longer duration of mechanical ventilation (P =0.026) and higher transfusion requirements for packed red cells (P =0.001) and fresh frozen plasma (P =0.001) as shown in Table 5.

    Table 5 Outcomes for patients who re-bled after Sengstaken-Blakemore tube insertion for acute severe variceal bleeding

    Non-serious mucosal trauma which was conservatively managed was not thought to be a significant complication in the life-threatening context of refractory AVB requiring balloon tamponade. Given that the incidence of serious complications from SBT insertion were uncommon and occurred in only 5 patients, no further analyses was performed to identify predictors.

    DlSCUSSlON

    AVB represents a life-threatening emergency in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension.However, with current treatment paradigms, 6 wk mortality has improved to 10%-15%[21]. Variceal bleeding refractory to first-line therapy requiring salvage therapy with balloon tamponade reflects a serious life-threatening condition in advanced liver disease that is associated with significant mortality.We demonstrate a 6 wk mortality rate of 48.8% in this cohort of patients despite current standards of care. Balloon tamponade with a SBT was found to be a very effective rescue therapy in refractory AVB,achieving primary haemostasis in 91.3% of patients with a low serious complication rate of 6.3%. On multivariate analysis, increasing MELD score, the presence of HCC and re-bleeding were all associated with a significantly increased odds of mortality.

    This study represents one of the largest series to examine the efficacy of SBT in patients presenting with AVB treated with current standards of care; an era where nearly all patients routinely receive vasoactive therapy and IV antibiotics, timely access to emergency endoscopic therapies and access to early TIPS. Balloon tamponade now represents a rescue therapy utilised in the 10-20% of patients with AVB in whom haemostasis cannot be achieved with vasoactive therapy and endoscopic techniques such as EVBL. Our 6 wk mortality rate of 48.8% is comparable to other modern cohorts at 41%-60%[4,13,14].In comparison with older cohorts from 1970-1980s with pooled 30-day to 6 wk mortality rates of 32.5%[1], the modern studies counterintuitively demonstrate a higher mortality rate. However, the historical cohorts often used balloon tamponade as a first-line treatment option and thus the cohorts are not readily comparable. Interestingly, in 2017 Nadleret al[13] reported similar survival rates to our study even though the rate of TIPS performed was much higher than in our cohort at 55.9% overall (19 of 34 patients). In our cohort, only 21.3% underwent TIPS at a median of 70.8 h (IQR 34.3-97.4 h) although variability in both expertise and availability of this radiological procedure throughout the years in our health services may have existed and the proportion of patients in whom TIPS may have been contraindicated remains unclear. Consideration of early TIPS insertion is currently recommended in all Child Pugh C patients and Child Pugh B patients with active bleeding who present with AVB[22]. TIPS placement is generally performed within 72 h (but ideally within 24 h) due to a high risk of treatment failure[7]. The early re-bleeding rate of 34.2% and high associated mortality found in our cohort highlights the propensity for serious complications in patients with AVB refractory to first-line treatments. Thus, if TIPS is considered in this cohort of patients, it should ideally be performed as soon as possible after primary haemostasis is achieved while the patient remains haemodynamically stable.

    This study supports previous evidence that balloon tamponade with a SBT remains very effective at achieving primary haemostasis in 91.3%. Of the 7 patients who did not achieve primary haemostasis, all had clinical evidence of ongoing bleeding despite SBT placement and rapidly deteriorated with haemodynamic instability and death within h despite maximal vasopressor and inotropic support.Apart from 1 patient where the gastric balloon was inflated to 100 mL, all others had inflation of the gastric balloon to adequate volumes (250-400 mL) with the oesophageal balloon also documented to be inflated in 2 patients. Our rates of primary haemostasis are comparable with historical larger cohorts published in the 1970 and 1980s at 90.7% and 88.5%[11,23]. However, compared to the other current studies, our rates of primary haemostasis are higher than those reported by Choiet al[14] and Escorsellet al[4] at 75.8% and 47%, respectively. Our re-bleeding rates lie between that of the 1970-1980s cohort(43%)[11] and Choiet al(22%)[14], and similarly we did not identify any significant relevant predictors for re-bleeding. We have showed that re-bleeding was also associated with greater mortality (76.1%vs27.1%,P =0.001) and required greater use of resources including blood products and mechanical ventilation. However, the serious complication rates of 6.3% we observed from SBT insertion was significantly lower than studies from the 1970s-1980s (approximately 32%)[1,11].

    In our study, the main predictors of 6 wk mortality on univariate and multivariate analysis were similar to those previously reported for AVB in cirrhosis and largely reflect liver disease severity eg.Child-Pugh and MELD scores (and its components) or severe biochemical systemic disturbance eg. pH and lactate[14,24]. In terms of validated tools for prognostication of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we identified that the AIMS65 score significantly predicted 6 wk mortality but not the GBS or Rockall scores. A previous study has also demonstrated superiority of the AIMS65 score over the GBS and preendoscopy Rockall scores[25]. In addition, we also found advanced HCC and re-bleeding independently predicted 6 wk mortality. With regards to advanced HCC, 9 of 11 patients with SBT for acute severe variceal bleeding died during the admission suggesting that the utility of this SBT in this patient subgroup needs to be considered in context of the futility of the situation, particularly as it is inevitably resource-heavy, requiring invasive monitoring and intensive care admission.

    We also identified significant variability amongst several aspects of clinical practice around SBT insertion at our centres, particularly around the inflation volumes of air into the gastric and oesophageal balloons. General guidelines[3] have recommended approximately 250-400 mL insertion of air into the gastric balloon based on clinical assessment, however 20.0% used < 250 mL with several of these noting migration of the SBT on confirmation chest X-ray due to under-filling. The oesophageal balloon is generally inflated to 25-40 mmHg or approximately 150 mL however 45.5% of oesophageal balloons were inflated to < 70 mL which is likely inadequate. Varying degrees of experience are expected with SBT insertion as most centres may only encounter this situation a few times every year, and formalised training is likely beneficial to optimise survival rates by appropriate tamponade technique and to prevent complications of oesophageal perforation, which may occur with balloon migration into the oesophagus from under-filling the gastric balloon. A previous survey of United States gastroenterologists and hepatologists from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases found that most respondents had not received training for balloon tamponade over the last 2 years and no trainees at that time were comfortable with balloon tamponade[26].

    This cohort study has certain limitations, particularly its retrospective nature and that identification of the study population relies on accurate coding. However, due to the infrequent need for this procedure, prospective data collection remains challenging. While there was variation in SBT balloon volume inflation, which may result in suboptimal use of this technique, this is the only study that attempts to provide the technical information surrounding this procedure in a real world cohort. Also,none of the patients at any of our health centres had oesophageal stents inserted for haemostasis in the study time period, which have more recently been shown to be superior to balloon tamponade[4].Nonetheless, to our knowledge this is the largest cohort study available in the current era with most patients treated according to clinical practice guidelines. Other modern cohort studies of acute severe variceal bleeding requiring balloon tamponade remain scarce and the SBT insertion was often not performed by trained specialist gastroenterologists.

    CONCLUSlON

    In conclusion, in the modern era of standardised medical and endoscopic therapies to treat AVB,salvage techniques such as balloon tamponade remain relevant for the time being. Overall, this condition remains associated with a high mortality of approximately 50% and although rates of primary haemostasis remain excellent, rates of re-bleeding occur in around one third of cases with high rates of subsequent death. These outcomes have not significantly changed when compared with the 1970-1980s even with improved therapies. However, rates of serious complications are low. Patients who survived the admission were likely to survive until at least 52 wk. Independent predictors for mortality include a higher MELD score, re-bleeding and advanced HCC which may assist in further stratification of at-risk individuals for either early definitive therapy with TIPS or early palliation.

    ARTlCLE HlGHLlGHTS

    Research background

    Salvage treatment using balloon tamponade techniques such as Sengstaken-Blakemore tubes (SBT)represents the most severe end of the spectrum of acute variceal bleeding (AVB), where failure to achieve primary haemostasis inevitably results in death. However, few studies report on the clinical practice and outcomes of this procedure in the current era, and only include small study populations where balloon tamponade is often performed by non-specialists in the emergency department setting.This retrospective multi-centre cohort study is the largest study including 80 patients over a decade who have undergone SBT for salvage therapy performed by gastroenterologists during endoscopy in tertiary hospitals. This study provides detailed technical aspects of the SBT insertion procedure and provides insight into the success rate, clinical outcomes of patients who undergo SBT insertion for refractory AVB and predictors of mortality, re-bleeding and complications from SBT.

    Research motivation

    The main topics of this study include detailed descriptions regarding the real-world practice of SBT performed by gastroenterologists in tertiary hospitals, and the clinical outcomes and predictors of shortand long-term mortality after SBT for AVB, the success rate of balloon tamponade in achieving primary haemostasis and the rate of re-bleeding and complications arising from SBT insertion. Information regarding these topics are not currently available for the current era which significantly differs from historical cohorts from the 1970-1980s due to a very different patient population where balloon tamponade was often first-line therapy. Currently, there are clear expert opinion-based consensus guidelines using a range of medical and endoscopic therapies and definitive treatment with radiologic procedures or liver transplantation for AVB. Furthermore, performing salvage technique with SBT is highly resource-intense and thus appropriate risk stratification to optimise outcomes for patients is required.

    Research objectives

    To assess the primary outcome which was all-cause mortality of AVB requiring SBT in the short-term (6 wk) as well as long-term (52 wk) and the secondary outcomes of re-bleeding and complications after SBT insertion. The predictors of these outcomes were also analysed. These objectives were all achieved apart from the predictors of complications from SBT as serious complications were infrequent.

    Research methods

    Due to the infrequent need to perform SBT for AVB, an appropriate method to undertake this study resulted in a multi-centre retrospective cohort study including 80 adult patients with SBT for refractory AVB from 2008 to 2019. The study population was identified using International Classification of Diseases-10 codes and clinical data was collected from medical records. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariate binomial regression and survival analyses were used to analyse the data collected.

    Research results

    SBT salvage for refractory AVB is a life-threatening condition with high mortality rates of 48.8% at 6 wk and 53.8% at 52 wk. The SBT procedure was highly successful in achieving primary haemostasis in 91.3% of patients but re-bleeding was common at 34.2% and associated with very high mortality of 76.0%. The predictors of mortality after SBT insertion included increased severity of liver disease, severe metabolic disturbance, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and re-bleeding. Serious complications from SBT insertion were uncommon at 6.3% and the main complications were superficial mucosal trauma without perforation which was managed conservatively. Despite this procedure being performed by specialist gastroenterologists in this study, there was still significant variation amongst technical aspects of the SBT procedure particularly amongst gastric and oesophageal balloon inflation volumes.

    Research conclusions

    In the current era, SBT as a salvage therapy for refractory AVB continues to be associated with high short and long-term mortality rates. The utilisation of this temporising procedure remains relevant and is associated with high rates of primary haemostasis over 90%. As the mortality rate exceeds 75% after re-bleeding, this highlights the importance of prompt treatment with definitive therapies such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts to optimise clinical outcomes. Furthermore, as SBT is associated with intense use of resources with even greater mortality in the presence of advanced HCC,this study suggests early palliation may be more appropriate in this futile setting.

    Research perspectives

    Future directions of this research should focus on strategies to optimise the clinical outcomes for this cohort of severe refractory AVB including prevention, the use of covered self-expandable oesophageal stents and prompt transition to definitive treatments before re-bleeding occurs. Further studies into risk stratification for optimal outcomes is required as well to assist clinicians in decision making regarding whether or not salvage therapy should be performed at all.

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:Keung C designed the study, collected and analysed data and wrote the manuscript; Morgan A collected data and wrote the manuscript; Le ST reviewed the statistical analysis and performed critical revisions of the manuscript; Robertson M performed critical revisions of the manuscript; Urquhart P performed critical revisions of the manuscript; Swan M designed and supervised the study and performed critical revisions of the manuscript.

    lnstitutional review board statement:This study was reviewed and approved by the Monash Health Human Research Ethics Committee (RES-21-0000-218Q-70254).

    lnformed consent statement:Patients were not required to give informed consent to this study and the analysis used anonymous clinical data.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:All authors declare no conflicts-of-interest related to this article.

    Data sharing statement:No additional data are available.

    STROBE statement:All authors have read the STROBE Statement checklist of items and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement checklist of items.

    Open-Access:This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BYNC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is noncommercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Country/Territory of origin:Australia

    ORClD number:Charlotte Y Keung 0000-0002-7040-3441; Suong T Le 0000-0003-3305-4999; Marcus Robertson 0000-0002-8848-1771; Michael P Swan 0000-0001-8036-5613.

    Corresponding Author's Membership in Professional Societies:Gastroenterological Society of Australia, 100139.

    S-Editor:Wang LL

    L-Editor:A

    P-Editor:Wang LL

    爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 中文字幕久久专区| 免费观看在线日韩| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 极品教师在线视频| 色综合色国产| eeuss影院久久| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| av网站免费在线观看视频 | 一个人免费在线观看电影| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 国产午夜精品论理片| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 黑人高潮一二区| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 极品教师在线视频| 黄色日韩在线| 亚洲av男天堂| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 亚洲色图av天堂| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 老司机影院毛片| 日本wwww免费看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 91精品国产九色| 搞女人的毛片| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 午夜久久久久精精品| av天堂中文字幕网| xxx大片免费视频| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 国产在视频线精品| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久 | 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 久久午夜福利片| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 在现免费观看毛片| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产av在哪里看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 久久草成人影院| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 美女大奶头视频| 观看美女的网站| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 中文欧美无线码| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 精品久久久久久成人av| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 亚洲内射少妇av| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 欧美日本视频| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 久热久热在线精品观看| 欧美成人a在线观看| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 在现免费观看毛片| 国产单亲对白刺激| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| freevideosex欧美| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 欧美97在线视频| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 欧美潮喷喷水| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 男女边摸边吃奶| 日韩伦理黄色片| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 老司机影院毛片| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区 | 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 精品人妻视频免费看| 国产av不卡久久| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 日本熟妇午夜| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 在线免费观看的www视频| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 黄片wwwwww| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版 | 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 六月丁香七月| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 精品人妻视频免费看| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| av国产免费在线观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 中文欧美无线码| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 亚洲性久久影院| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 精品久久久久久久久av| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| av网站免费在线观看视频 | 人人妻人人看人人澡| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 久99久视频精品免费| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 久久草成人影院| 日本免费在线观看一区| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 欧美潮喷喷水| 亚洲av男天堂| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 久久97久久精品| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 老司机影院毛片| 精品一区在线观看国产| 男女那种视频在线观看| 日本午夜av视频| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 天堂√8在线中文| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产极品天堂在线| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| kizo精华| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 777米奇影视久久| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国产老妇女一区| www.色视频.com| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 三级经典国产精品| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 婷婷色综合www| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 九九在线视频观看精品| www.色视频.com| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 精品国产三级普通话版| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 身体一侧抽搐| 777米奇影视久久| 三级毛片av免费| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 亚洲图色成人| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 欧美激情在线99| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 午夜日本视频在线| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 特级一级黄色大片| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 性色avwww在线观看| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲av福利一区| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 国产av国产精品国产| 99久久人妻综合| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 亚洲四区av| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 国产成人精品婷婷| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 久久久久久久国产电影| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 黄色配什么色好看| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品一二三| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 永久免费av网站大全| 一级毛片我不卡| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 中文字幕久久专区| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚洲图色成人| 精品国产三级普通话版| 成年av动漫网址| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆 | 麻豆成人av视频| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 午夜久久久久精精品| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 久久这里只有精品中国| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| eeuss影院久久| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 亚洲精品视频女| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| av天堂中文字幕网| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品 | 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| av国产免费在线观看| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 中文资源天堂在线| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| av.在线天堂| 欧美性感艳星| 国产综合懂色| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产永久视频网站| 综合色丁香网| 国产淫语在线视频| eeuss影院久久| 51国产日韩欧美| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| av一本久久久久| 精品一区二区三卡| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 一级黄片播放器| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 久久久精品免费免费高清| eeuss影院久久| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 成年版毛片免费区| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 一本一本综合久久| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 天堂网av新在线| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 高清av免费在线| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 久久99精品国语久久久| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 久久久久性生活片| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 极品教师在线视频| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 日本wwww免费看| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 久久久国产一区二区| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 老司机影院成人| 国产高潮美女av| 久99久视频精品免费| 午夜福利在线在线| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 日韩电影二区| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 国产高潮美女av| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产 亚洲一区二区三区 | videos熟女内射| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 国产免费视频播放在线视频 | 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 深夜a级毛片| 高清毛片免费看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版 | 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 99热全是精品| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 永久网站在线| a级毛色黄片| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产精品三级大全| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 久久午夜福利片| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 人妻一区二区av| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 亚洲在线观看片| 舔av片在线| 大香蕉久久网| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 亚洲精品视频女| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 国产精品久久视频播放| av播播在线观看一区| 中文字幕制服av| 色吧在线观看| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 99热全是精品| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 国产色婷婷99| 欧美性感艳星| 欧美区成人在线视频| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 在线 av 中文字幕| 日本色播在线视频| 国产成人精品一,二区| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 亚洲最大成人av| 免费大片18禁| 内地一区二区视频在线| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 一级黄片播放器| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 国产乱来视频区| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 久久这里只有精品中国| 国产91av在线免费观看| 日本色播在线视频| 极品教师在线视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 一级毛片 在线播放| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产 亚洲一区二区三区 | 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 欧美bdsm另类| 日日啪夜夜爽| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 欧美潮喷喷水| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 色5月婷婷丁香| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 久久热精品热| 色视频www国产| 只有这里有精品99| 欧美3d第一页| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 男人舔奶头视频| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 精品人妻视频免费看| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 永久免费av网站大全| 久久精品夜色国产| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| av线在线观看网站| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 在现免费观看毛片| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 五月天丁香电影| 少妇丰满av| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 亚洲18禁久久av| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 麻豆成人av视频| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产在视频线在精品| 久久久久久久久大av| 国产综合懂色| 高清av免费在线| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 老司机影院毛片| 久久久久精品性色| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 久久这里只有精品中国| 国产高清三级在线| 舔av片在线| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 97热精品久久久久久| av在线蜜桃| 欧美3d第一页| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 99久久人妻综合| 一级片'在线观看视频| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 嫩草影院新地址| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆 | 亚洲性久久影院| 一夜夜www| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 精品久久久精品久久久| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 人妻一区二区av| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 国产高潮美女av| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| av专区在线播放| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 国产老妇女一区| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产精品三级大全| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频|