ABSTRACT
On May 11， 2020， DB/T 31-689.1 Technical requirements for infection prevention and control-Part 1： Usage standard for personal protective equipment （hereinafter referred to as the Standard） was issued by the Shanghai Municipal Administration for Market Regulation， and implemented on July 1， 2020. This paper analyses the importance and significance of promulgation of the Standard in terms of the necessity and importance of formulating the usage standard for personal protective equipment （PPE）. And interpretation of key indicators is made， especially focusing on the technical requirements of PPE， risk assessment， donning and doffing， and disposing after use， so as to help users of PPE accurately understand and better implement the Standard.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: By recording the treatment events of implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD) in patients with ejection fraction reduced heart failure(HFrEF), to analyze the difference in primary and secondary prevention patients. METHODS: A single center retrospective study was conducted. HFrEF patients with ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy with cardioverter defibrillator(CRT-D) implanted in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2006 to December 2017 were enrolled in our study. Basic clinical data was collected and ICD treatment events were recorded during follow-up. The appropriate treatment events were identified according to electrocardiogram recorded by ICD. The ICD treatment events of primary and secondary prevention patients were analyzed. RESULTS: 1) A total of 145 patients with HFrEF implanted with ICD or CRT-D were enrolled, 103 primary prevention patients and 42 secondary prevention patients. Primary prevention patients had longer left ventricular end-systolic diameter(LVESD) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) than secondary prevention patients. 2) Multivariate competitive risk regression analysis showed that secondary prevention patients and male patients had higher risk of receiving appropriate treatment and appropriate shock therapy. 3) K-M curve and Log-Rank test showed that there was no significant difference in the risk of inappropriate treatment between primary and secondary prevention patients. The main cause of inappropriate treatment was atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: 1) Primary prevention patients have lower risk of receiving appropriate treatment and appropriate shock therapy than secondary prevention patients; 2) There is no significant difference between primary and secondary prevention patients in the risk of inappropriate treatment. The main cause of inappropriate treatment events is atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the safety, immunogenicity and fit dosage of Healive inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (HAV) in children.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A total of 85 susceptible aged 4 - 10 years with HAV seronegative children, had been enrolled from two adjacent villages in a county. The volunteers were randomized allocated into two groups and to receive a priming dose of 250 U/0.5 ml/dose or 500 U/1.0 ml/dose of Healive vaccine, produced by Sinovac Biotech Co, Ltd. A booster of the same dose was given at 12th month. Local and systemic side effects were examined and seroconversion rate as well as geometric mean titers of anti-HAV antibody were tested at 3-week, 12-month after the primary dose and at 1 month after the booster dose.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The vaccine was well tolerated in both groups. At 21 days after the primary dose, the seroconversion rates were 94.4%, 100.0% and geometric mean titers (GMT) were 195 mIU/ml and 370 mIU/ml in 250 U and 500 U groups respectively. At 12 months after the primary dose, the seroconversion rate of anti-HAV was 100.0%, and GMT raised to 361 mIU/ml, 456 mIU/ml (P > 0.05) respectively. One month after the booster dose, GMT raised to 14 893 mIU/ml, 21 696 mIU/ml.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>GMT of the 0, 12 month schedule was higher than other schedule after the booster vaccination. The Healive inactivated vaccine can be used for emergency vaccination. The Healive inactivated vaccine produced by Sinovac Company Ltd was safe and highly immunogenic. Two hundred and fifty U/dose was considered appropriate for children.</p>