• <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 ?

    Major gastrointestinal bleeding and antithrombotics: Characteristics and management

    2020-10-22 04:31:52JacquesBougetDamienViglinoQuentinYvetotEmmanuelOger
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2020年36期
    關(guān)鍵詞:理論語言系統(tǒng)

    Jacques Bouget, Damien Viglino, Quentin Yvetot, Emmanuel Oger

    Abstract

    Key Words: Real-world setting; Emergency; Bleeding; Mortality; Antithrombotics; Management

    INTRODUCTION

    The prevalence of vascular diseases is increasing, resulting in a large proportion of patients requiring long-term treatment with antithrombotics-antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants-particularly among the elderly. Consequently, the risk of hemorrhage related to antithrombotic use will increase, including gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, which is the commonest manifestation[1,2].There are few reports on the clinical and pathological characteristics of major GI bleeding in a large population, and reports are often limited to oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants) or antiplatelet agents[3,4], only exceptionally including parenteral anticoagulants[5]. Information on the location of the causative bleeding lesion, on management, and on resource consumption for patients with GI bleeding and their associations with different antithrombotics is scarce, and we thought the issue was relevant and of clinical importance. Differences in GI bleeding locations according to the presence of antiplatelet agents (AP) drugs, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and the relative distribution between upper and lower GI bleeding locations have been reported[6-10]. Varying methodologies, retrospective or prospective designs, different definitions of GI bleeding and patient selection according to antithrombotic indication could explain these conflicting results[6-10]. In addition, little is known about the severity of GI bleeding, the causative lesions or fatalities among patients admitted to emergency department for acute major GI bleeding while receiving an antithrombotic.

    Our primary objective was to describe the clinical characteristics, bleeding locations, management and fatalities related to upper and lower major GI bleeding events among patients receiving an antithrombotic, whatever the indication. Our second objective was to compare the distribution of antithrombotics between patients with upper and lower bleeding lesions, and between patients with gastro-duodenal ulcer and patients with other identified causes of upper GI bleeding.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study population

    The SACHA study is a French prospective population-based cohort on the incidence and outcome of major bleeding among patients treated with antithrombotics (parenteral or oral anticoagulant, or antiplatelet agent). The detailed methods have already been published[11].

    For the current analysis, we studied all consecutive adult patients admitted in two tertiary care hospitals between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015 for major GI bleeding. Briefly, patients were first identified at emergency admission from computerised requests on electronic health records on the basis of several GI haemorrhage diagnostic codes (Supplementary Table 1, ICD-10 code list), and on the basis of specific emergency therapies suggesting the patient might have been prescribed an antithrombotic. In each emergency department, the referent medical doctor validated the final inclusion of all screened records for major bleeding. Major bleeding was defined from at least one of the following criteria[12]: Unstable hemodynamic (systolic arterial pressure < 90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg) or haemorrhagic shock, uncontrollable bleeding, need for transfusion or haemostatic procedure (endoscopic procedure, embolization, surgery). Of note, we excluded (1) patients who had major GI bleeding during hospitalization whereas they were referred to emergency for another reason; and (2) patients referred for intentional overdoses of antithrombotics.

    Data sources and variables

    Clinical and biological data were collected from emergency department clinical records: Demographics (age, gender), medical history, co-morbid conditions, antithrombotic class, concomitant medical treatment (in particular proton pump inhibitor), type of bleeding/outcome, vital signs at admission (mean blood pressure), contributory procedures that led to a diagnosis of major GI bleeding, biological data at admission (haemoglobin and creatinine levels), therapeutic management of the haemorrhagic event in the emergency unit. From hospital medical records, we extracted the length of stay in hospital, intensive care unit stay and fatalities, defined as in-hospital deaths. In addition, medical records were carefully analyzed for a detailed description of endoscopic and abdominal computed tomography scan findings. Lastly, specific endoscopic procedures (haemostatic treatment, sclerotherapy with epinephrine injection, electro-cautery therapy, mucosal resection, ablation) were specifically collected. If GI diagnostic procedures were not performed, the reasons were sought in the medical records.

    Statistical analysis

    Firstly, the clinical characteristics were described according to gastrointestinal symptoms: Hematemesis or melena indicating upper GI bleeding and hematochezia indicating lower GI bleeding.

    Secondly, we described the causative lesions, clinical characteristics across causative lesions summarized as a four-class variable (gastro-duodenal ulcer, other upper GI lesion, lower GI lesion, and unknown cause), and the distribution of five or six mutually exclusive antithrombotic classes (VKA alone, DOAC alone, parenteral anticoagulants alone, AP alone mono or dual, and any combination). We compared the distribution of antithrombotic classes between patients with upper and lower causative bleeding lesions and between gastro-duodenal ulcer (vsother upper GI causes) and antithrombotic classes, stratifying for proton pump inhibitor coprescription.

    Thirdly, case management and fatalities were compared across antithrombotic classes, excluding patients with a limitation of care decision, and stratifying for bleeding symptoms.

    For the stratified statistical analysis we used the general association statistic which tests the alternative hypothesis that, for at least one stratum, there is some kind of association. We then took potential confounders into account in a multivariate logistic regression model.

    All statistical tests were two-tailed andPvalues < 0.05 were considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, United States).

    RESULTS

    Clinical characteristics

    Over a 3-year period, we identified 1080 eligible patients: 576 (53.3%) patients with symptoms of upper GI bleeding (hematemesis or melena) and 504 (46.7%) patients with symptoms of lower GI bleeding (hematochezia). The characteristics of the patients are reported in Table 1. Of note, 257 patients out of 1080 (23.8%) had a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, either major or not; 20 patients out of 1080 (1.85%) had a history of intracranial hemorrhage and 80 patients out of 1080 (7.41%) had a history of bleeding in other location.

    The distribution of antithrombotic regimens was as follows (Supplementary Table 2): 461 patients were prescribed AP alone, 321 VKA alone, 53 parenteral anticoagulant alone, and 177 various combinations. For 2 patients, the type of antithrombotic remained unknown. Coagulation parameters according to antithrombotic regimen are shown in Supplementary Table 2.

    Twenty-one patients (1.9%) were subject to limitation of care at admission, 14 with upper GI symptoms and 7 with lower GI symptoms.

    Causative lesions

    The cause of GI bleeding was identified for 697 patients (64.5%), 408 with upper GI symptoms, and 289 with lower GI symptoms. No cause of bleeding was identified for 383 patients (35.5%), because investigations yielded negative results (174 patients) or because of no investigations were performed (209 patients). Those patients had upper GI symptoms (191 patients) or with lower GI symptoms (192 patients). Gastrointestinal investigations were performed on 862 patients without limitation of care decision, 479 with upper GI symptoms and 383 with lower GI symptoms. Details are shown in Supplementary Table 3.

    Gastro-duodenal ulcer was the first causative lesion of the upper tract (209 out of 408) followed by erosive gastric lesion (75 out of 408) and angiodysplasia (51 out of 408). In the lower GI tract, colonic diverticulum was the principal causative lesion (120 out of 288) followed by colon cancer (51 out 288).

    Among 504 patients with symptoms of lower GI bleeding (hematochezia) 55 (11%) were diagnosed to have upper GI bleeding.

    Clinical characteristics that significantly differed across causative lesions were age, gender, a history of liver cirrhosis or gastro-duodenal ulcer, and tobacco use (Supplementary Table 4).

    The matrix crossing detailed causative lesions and antithrombotic classes is provided in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6.

    When crossing GI lesion location (uppervslower) and antithrombotic classes, the proportions were fairly similar (Supplementary Table 7 and Figure 1) except for DOAC for which there was a larger proportion of lower GI than upper GI lesion locations, and for antiplatelet drugs with a larger proportion of upper GI than lower GI lesion locations (overallPvalue = 0.03). Indeed pair wise comparison with Bonferroni correction pointed to a difference between DOAC and antiplatelet drugs (Pvalue = 0.02).

    In a stratified statistical analysis of the relationship between gastro-duodenal ulcer as a causative lesion (vsother upper GI causes) and antithrombotic drug type, controlling for proton pump inhibitor (PPI) co-prescription, the general association statistic rejected the null hypothesis (P= 0.05, Figure 2). The multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for gender, a history of cancer, liver cirrhosis or gastroduodenal ulcer showed that the antithrombotic class (P= 0.03) and PPI co-prescription [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.35-0.88] were independently associated with gastro-duodenal ulcer. Bonferroni adjusted pair wise comparisons evidenced differences between dual APvsVKA (adjusted OR = 3.1, 95%CI: 1.2-7.7), dualvsmono AP (adjusted OR = 2.7, 95%CI: 1.1-6.7), dual APvsDOAC (adjusted OR = 9.0, 95%CI: 2.0-39) and parenteral antithrombotic drugvsDOAC (adjusted OR = 4.4, 95%CI: 1.2-16).

    Management of the bleeding event and outcomes

    Our results showed lower resource consumption for the management of lower GI bleeding compared to upper GI bleeding, whatever the antithrombotic type.

    Upper GI bleeding management:PPI injection was prescribed to about 80% of patients and red cell transfusions were required for more than 80%, whatever the antithrombotic. Thirty patients required surgery and 2 an embolization. About one-fifth of the patients required endoscopy with haemostatic procedures. Only 50.6% and 31.5% of patients under VKA received reversal therapy with vitamin K and prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) respectively. PCC was prescribed to only 23% of the patients under DOACs (Supplementary Table 8, panel A).

    Table 1 Patient characteristics according to gastrointestinal bleeding symptoms

    Lower GI bleeding management:PPI injection was also the most frequent treatment used, whatever the antithrombotic (28.4% overall). Red cell transfusions were needed for about 60% of the patients. Reversal therapy with vitamin K and PCC was required for 51.7% and 27.3% of patients under VKA respectively. PCC was prescribed to 7.9% of the patients under DOACs. Forty-one patients required surgery and fourteen an embolization (Supplementary Table 8, panel B).

    Most patients needed hospitalization, 87.5% for upper GI bleeding, and 81.7% for lower GI bleeding (Supplementary Table 9). Length of stay and the need for critical care were similar whatever the antithrombotic and type of GI bleeding.

    Figure 1 Antithrombotic classes according to gastro-intestinal bleeding lesion location. Overall chi-square test P value = 0.03. All pair-wise comparisons with Bonferroni correction > 0.10 except for direct oral anticoagulant compared to AP (P value = 0.02). AP: Antiplatelet agent; DOAC: Direct oral anticoagulant; GI: Gastrointestinal; VKA: Vitamin K antagonist.

    Figure 2 Antithrombotic classes according to gastro-duodenal ulcer and proton pump inhibitor use. General association statistic P value = 0.05. AP: Antiplatelet agent; DOAC: Direct oral anticoagulant; VKA: Vitamin K antagonist.

    Fatalities

    Among the 1059 patients without a limitation of care decision, 63 patients (5.95%) died, 39 with upper GI bleeding (out of 523, 6.94%) and 24 with lower GI bleeding (out of 437, 4.83%). In-hospital mortality, whatever the GI bleeding type, was not statistically different across antithrombotics (P= 0.09, Figure 3).

    Figure 3 Antithrombotic classes according to gastro-intestinal bleeding type and in-hospital mortality. General association statistic P value = 0.09. AP: Antiplatelet agent; DOAC: Direct oral anticoagulant; VKA: Vitamin K antagonist.

    DISCUSSION

    Our large, multicentre, prospective, comprehensive cohort of patients who had been prescribed an antithrombotic and who were referred for major GI bleeding made it possible to report on GI investigations, causative GI lesions, management, and fatalities.

    Investigations

    Among patients undergoing GI investigations, a bleeding lesion was identified for 64.5%, which is higher than in other reports: 42%-44% in the prospective study by Pannachet al[7], 58.4% in the post-hoc study by Kolbet al[13]within the RELY study.

    Causative GI lesions and DOAC

    There was a larger proportion of DOAC prescription among patients with a lower GI location than among those with an upper GI lesion location. A similar distribution was reported by Pannachet al[7]and by post-hoc analyses in pivotal trials[13,14]. Several reasons are given: Incomplete absorption of DOAC across the GI mucosa and a potential for topical drug activity leading to relevant concentrations of active drug in the lower GI tract[15], non-absorbed active DOAC being excreted into the feces[16]. In addition, more active drug in the lumen could exacerbate bleeding from existing lesions[17]. All these reasons contrast with the high absorption and excretion for VKA and AP[7]. No patient with gastro-duodenal ulcer received dabigatran, but a few with gastric erosive lesion did: The low oral bioavailability of the dabigatran pro-drug etexilate (6%) and the causticity of tartric acid associated with dabigatran could explain these findings[8]. Few patients with lower GI lesions were receiving DOAC, which contrasts with results from the study by Sherwoodet al[15]. This could be explained by our strict definition of major bleeding.

    Causative GI lesion and anti-platelet drugs

    There was a larger proportion of antiplatelet drug use among patients with upper GI locations than among those with lower GI lesion locations. Our results are in line with previous reports that showed gastro-duodenal ulcer as the most frequent bleeding lesion with acetylsalicylic acid and P2Y12 inhibitors[18]. Acetylsalicylic acid inhibits cyclo-oxygenase 1 in the GI mucosa, leading to a reduction in the synthesis of cytoprotective prostaglandin in the GI tract, allowing GI lesions to develop[19]. P2Y12 inhibitors inhibit adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation without inhibiting cyclo-oxygenase 1 function and prostaglandin formation[20]. Adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists can cause GI lesions through an impairment of ulcer healing[21]. Nevertheless, P2Y12 inhibitors induce upper GI bleeding with the same frequency as acetylsalicylic acid[18,20,22]. Taking account of the protective role of PPI[18,23,24]on the incidence of gastro-duodenal ulcer, our results showed an over-representation of dual AP use among patients with ulcers.

    All drugs that prolong bleeding time induce lower GI bleeding from preexisting lesions, which explains the increased risk of diverticulum bleeding with acetylsalicylic acid whatever the dose, and with P2Y12 inhibitors[25,26].

    Management

    Percentages of patients with specific therapies, reversal therapy and transfusions were similar irrespective of antithrombotic used and GI bleeding location. Patients on antiplatelet drugs can require platelet transfusions[17], prescribed here to a few patients. For patients under VKA, reversal therapy with cryopoor plasma and vitamin K was used in accordance with guidelines[12,27]. There were no differences in the rates of hospitalization nor in length of stay across antithrombotics nor according to GI bleeding location.

    Our results differ from other studies: Pannachet al[7]showed low resource consumption, shorter hospitalization and lower rates of transfusion with DOAC than with VKA among patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. Cangemiet al[9]reported a significantly lower incidence of transfusions and shorter length of stay for patients under DOAC compared to warfarin. Nagataset al[28]reported a significantly higher transfusion needs among warfarin users than among DOAC users, with no differences in the levels of use of endoscopy therapy. In this study, few patients required surgery, embolization or endoscopy with haemostatic procedures, without any differences across antithrombotics[28]. Fewer hospitalizations and fewer transfusions in the DOAC group than in the warfarin group, irrespective of GI bleeding type and anticoagulant indication, were reported by Brodieet al[29]. Diamantopouloset al[30]showed more frequent endoscopic hemostasis for patients under DOAC, fewer hospitalization days with no difference for blood transfusion needs or embolization/surgery. In these studies, different inclusion criteria and bleeding definitions could explain these conflicting results. We think that our strict definition of major bleeding and its medical validation are relevant, and led to greater population homogeneity. This could explain the absence of any difference with regard to management and outcomes across antithrombotics.

    Fatalities

    Overall in-hospital mortality was 5.95% in the present study. We were not able to reject the homogeneity hypothesis across antithrombotics. There is clearly a lack of power. Our results were nevertheless in line with the results reported by Pannachetal[7].

    Our population-based multicenter cohort can be thought to be representative of a real-world population. Like others[3], we hypothesized that bleeding risk related to antithrombotics was mostly related to patient characteristics, not to the antithrombotic used. We used strict criteria for major bleeding, based on the French guidelines[12]and criteria close to the ISTH criteria[31]. In addition, the medical validation minimized bias.

    語言是復(fù)雜的、非線性的。但以往的語言發(fā)展觀總是通過還原論方法把它加以簡化,即把語言看成是線性簡單系統(tǒng),語言可以分解為部分,部分相加就構(gòu)成語言的整體。對于非線性的語言系統(tǒng)而言,復(fù)雜性和不可預(yù)測性是其重要特征。然而,在看似復(fù)雜的語言現(xiàn)象背后,存在著某種規(guī)律性。動(dòng)態(tài)系統(tǒng)理論的語言發(fā)展觀借助分形理論,使人們能以新的觀念來分析撲朔迷離的語言難題,透過復(fù)雜的語言現(xiàn)象,揭示語言系統(tǒng)局部與整體的本質(zhì)聯(lián)系以及語言系統(tǒng)的內(nèi)在生長機(jī)制。

    We cannot exclude a risk of misclassification related to coding errors at the time of hospital admissions, although this may not be very likely for a serious condition like bleeding. Our study was restricted to two tertiary care hospitals. We required extensive clinical data, and a trade-off had to be made between the number of participating centers and feasibility. We focused on major bleeding, and lastly we provided here only descriptive statistics.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, our study showed a high rate of bleeding lesion identification and suggested a different pattern of antithrombotic exposure between upper GI and lower GI lesion locations, and between gastro-duodenal ulcer and other identified causes of upper GI bleeding. We did not detect any difference in management or outcomes across a range of antithrombotics. In-hospital mortality was low.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    There are few reports on the characteristics of major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients exposed to different antithrombotics.

    Research motivation

    There are conflicting results when reporting GI bleeding causative lesions across different antithrombotics. In addition, severity and case fatality are poorly known.

    Research objectives

    The main objective was to describe the characteristics, causative lesions, management and fatalities related to major GI bleeding events for patients receiving an antithrombotic. A secondary objective was to compare the distribution of antithrombotics between upper and lower GI bleeding, and finally to compare the distribution of antithrombotics between patients with gastro-duodenal ulcer and patients with other identified causes of upper GI bleeding.

    Research methods

    Over a three-year period (2013-2015), in two tertiary care hospitals in France, we prospectively identified adult patients admitted for major GI bleeding while receiving an antithrombotic. Patients were screened at emergency admission by computerised requests on electronic health records. All screened records were medically validated. Major bleeding was defined on pre-specified criteria. Data were collected from emergency department clinical records and hospital medical records.

    Research results

    We observed a high rate of identification of causative bleeding lesions. There was a higher proportion of direct oral anticoagulant use among patients with lower GI locations than among those with upper GI lesion locations. Dual antiplatelet regimen was more frequently encountered among patients with gastro-duodenal ulcers. Our data did not support differences in management and outcomes across the various antithrombotics. In-hospital mortality was low.

    Research conclusions

    Our results suggest a different pattern of antithrombotic exposure between GI lesion locations.

    Research perspectives

    Future research could assess potential difference between direct oral anticoagulants.

    猜你喜歡
    理論語言系統(tǒng)
    Smartflower POP 一體式光伏系統(tǒng)
    堅(jiān)持理論創(chuàng)新
    神秘的混沌理論
    理論創(chuàng)新 引領(lǐng)百年
    WJ-700無人機(jī)系統(tǒng)
    ZC系列無人機(jī)遙感系統(tǒng)
    北京測繪(2020年12期)2020-12-29 01:33:58
    相關(guān)于撓理論的Baer模
    語言是刀
    文苑(2020年4期)2020-05-30 12:35:30
    讓語言描寫搖曳多姿
    連通與提升系統(tǒng)的最后一塊拼圖 Audiolab 傲立 M-DAC mini
    亚州av有码| a 毛片基地| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 国产成人精品在线电影| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线 | 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 亚洲精品一二三| 插逼视频在线观看| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产永久视频网站| 日韩强制内射视频| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 天天影视国产精品| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 免费av中文字幕在线| 久久久久网色| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 精品一区二区三卡| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 中国国产av一级| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产高清三级在线| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| av天堂久久9| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| www.av在线官网国产| 亚洲精品视频女| 日韩av免费高清视频| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 国产成人一区二区在线| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 日本91视频免费播放| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 黑人高潮一二区| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 精品亚洲成国产av| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 嫩草影院入口| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产成人精品福利久久| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 国产成人精品在线电影| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 只有这里有精品99| 黄片播放在线免费| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 日日撸夜夜添| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 久久久久网色| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 中文天堂在线官网| 色吧在线观看| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 国产成人aa在线观看| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 国产亚洲最大av| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 久久久欧美国产精品| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 九九在线视频观看精品| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 韩国av在线不卡| 久久婷婷青草| av在线观看视频网站免费| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 免费大片18禁| 成人二区视频| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 777米奇影视久久| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 麻豆成人av视频| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 免费观看性生交大片5| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 国产成人精品久久久久久| www.色视频.com| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 看免费成人av毛片| 美女国产视频在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 精品亚洲成国产av| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 一级片'在线观看视频| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 欧美+日韩+精品| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| www.色视频.com| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 午夜福利视频精品| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 22中文网久久字幕| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲成色77777| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 亚洲成色77777| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 插逼视频在线观看| 成人影院久久| 丁香六月天网| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 性色avwww在线观看| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 免费大片18禁| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产成人精品无人区| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 全区人妻精品视频| 97在线视频观看| 中文字幕制服av| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 人人澡人人妻人| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费 | 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 五月天丁香电影| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 色94色欧美一区二区| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 日韩视频在线欧美| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 另类精品久久| 中文天堂在线官网| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 欧美日韩av久久| 国产成人精品福利久久| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 国产成人freesex在线| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 性色av一级| 免费观看av网站的网址| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 精品国产国语对白av| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 久久久久久久久大av| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 大香蕉久久成人网| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 满18在线观看网站| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| kizo精华| 欧美另类一区| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 午夜91福利影院| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精 国产伦在线观看视频一区 | 国产欧美亚洲国产| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 国产淫语在线视频| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 男女免费视频国产| 婷婷色综合www| 岛国毛片在线播放| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 婷婷成人精品国产| 国产精品无大码| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 国产成人精品福利久久| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| av卡一久久| 色5月婷婷丁香| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 国产一级毛片在线| 大香蕉久久成人网| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 一本大道久久a久久精品| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 国产精品国产av在线观看| xxx大片免费视频| 99久久人妻综合| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 人妻一区二区av| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 最黄视频免费看| 国产精品一二三区在线看| a级毛片在线看网站| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 在线天堂最新版资源| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 亚洲av男天堂| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 久久精品夜色国产| 两个人的视频大全免费| 久久久久精品性色| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 91精品国产国语对白视频| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 春色校园在线视频观看| 老司机影院毛片| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| videosex国产| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| av在线播放精品| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 搡老乐熟女国产| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 熟女av电影| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 97超视频在线观看视频| 精品亚洲成国产av| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 久久狼人影院| 精品久久久久久久久av| 美女中出高潮动态图| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| av福利片在线| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃 | av国产精品久久久久影院| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 综合色丁香网| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 成人影院久久| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 免费观看性生交大片5| 国产成人freesex在线| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 亚洲精品第二区| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 久久av网站| 久久影院123| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 黄色配什么色好看| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 嫩草影院入口| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| av电影中文网址| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 中文天堂在线官网| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 九九在线视频观看精品| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 日本黄大片高清| 五月天丁香电影| 国产永久视频网站| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕 | av黄色大香蕉| 一级毛片 在线播放| 天天影视国产精品| 国产视频首页在线观看| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 亚洲成色77777| 春色校园在线视频观看| 满18在线观看网站| 三级国产精品片| 一区在线观看完整版| 久久久久久人妻| 桃花免费在线播放| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 一级片'在线观看视频| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 国产综合精华液| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 曰老女人黄片| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 美女国产视频在线观看| 高清不卡的av网站| www.av在线官网国产| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 男女免费视频国产| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 草草在线视频免费看| 日本91视频免费播放| 精品久久久久久久久av| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 精品酒店卫生间| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 韩国av在线不卡| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 国产淫语在线视频| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 国产成人精品在线电影| 五月天丁香电影| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 制服人妻中文乱码| 五月开心婷婷网| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 最新中文字幕久久久久| av黄色大香蕉| 美女国产视频在线观看| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产成人freesex在线| 亚洲综合精品二区| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 少妇高潮的动态图| 春色校园在线视频观看| 男女边摸边吃奶| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 97超碰精品成人国产| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| a级毛色黄片| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 久久 成人 亚洲| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 制服诱惑二区| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 精品久久久久久久久av| 国产成人一区二区在线| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 熟女电影av网| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲av.av天堂| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| av天堂久久9| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 免费看不卡的av| 99久久综合免费| 久久免费观看电影| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产成人精品婷婷| www.av在线官网国产| a级毛片黄视频| 最黄视频免费看| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 高清不卡的av网站| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 黄色配什么色好看| 在现免费观看毛片| 国产精品无大码| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 成人影院久久| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 久久久精品区二区三区| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 91精品三级在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 最黄视频免费看| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 99热网站在线观看| 少妇的逼水好多| 国产av国产精品国产| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 超碰97精品在线观看| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 曰老女人黄片| 草草在线视频免费看| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 22中文网久久字幕| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 一级片'在线观看视频| av有码第一页| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 亚洲性久久影院| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 午夜激情久久久久久久| av有码第一页| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 久久久久视频综合| 九草在线视频观看| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 777米奇影视久久| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 99热全是精品| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 国产成人aa在线观看| 桃花免费在线播放| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 性色avwww在线观看| 日本与韩国留学比较| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 在线观看人妻少妇| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 日本黄大片高清| 亚洲不卡免费看| 成人影院久久| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 自线自在国产av| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| av网站免费在线观看视频| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲不卡免费看| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 在线看a的网站|