• <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
    亚洲国产欧美网| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 国产区一区二久久| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 婷婷丁香在线五月| 日日夜夜操网爽| 无限看片的www在线观看| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 大型av网站在线播放| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 日本欧美视频一区| 国产精品九九99| 亚洲av熟女| 久99久视频精品免费| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 91成人精品电影| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区 | 久久中文看片网| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| cao死你这个sao货| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 黄频高清免费视频| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| a级毛片黄视频| 亚洲伊人色综图| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 久久草成人影院| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 超碰97精品在线观看| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 欧美乱妇无乱码| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 日本wwww免费看| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费 | 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院 | 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 午夜精品在线福利| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区 | 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 久久青草综合色| 午夜激情av网站| 色在线成人网| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 在线免费观看的www视频| 91老司机精品| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 9191精品国产免费久久| 看免费av毛片| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 久久久国产一区二区| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 亚洲精品在线美女| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 女警被强在线播放| 色综合婷婷激情| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 亚洲av美国av| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产激情久久老熟女| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 999久久久国产精品视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| av福利片在线| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| av有码第一页| 一区在线观看完整版| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| www日本在线高清视频| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 亚洲九九香蕉| 亚洲综合色网址| 高清欧美精品videossex| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 色综合婷婷激情| 亚洲伊人色综图| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 欧美中文综合在线视频| av免费在线观看网站| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 高清欧美精品videossex| 国产成人欧美| 成人免费观看视频高清| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 黄色成人免费大全| 午夜福利,免费看| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| a级毛片黄视频| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 久9热在线精品视频| 欧美大码av| av不卡在线播放| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片 | 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 国产精华一区二区三区| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 久久精品影院6| 1024手机看黄色片| 色综合婷婷激情| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 免费看十八禁软件| 日本三级黄在线观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 男女那种视频在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 亚洲无线在线观看| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 小说图片视频综合网站| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国产午夜精品论理片| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| av专区在线播放| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 香蕉久久夜色| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 免费观看人在逋| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 在线视频色国产色| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美 | 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 内射极品少妇av片p| 欧美bdsm另类| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 91av网一区二区| 嫩草影院精品99| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| av黄色大香蕉| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 免费看光身美女| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 国产精品,欧美在线| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 日本在线视频免费播放| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 99热精品在线国产| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 全区人妻精品视频| 日本与韩国留学比较| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 俺也久久电影网| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 精品日产1卡2卡| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 日本五十路高清| 亚洲av一区综合| 校园春色视频在线观看| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 欧美日韩黄片免| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 成年免费大片在线观看| 熟女电影av网| 免费观看人在逋| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 99久国产av精品| 日本成人三级电影网站| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 色av中文字幕| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 小说图片视频综合网站| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 亚洲 国产 在线| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 亚洲18禁久久av| 性欧美人与动物交配| 在线天堂最新版资源| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 97超视频在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 我的老师免费观看完整版| 香蕉丝袜av| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 色吧在线观看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 观看美女的网站| 色综合站精品国产| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 日本三级黄在线观看| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产乱人视频| 性色avwww在线观看| 在线国产一区二区在线| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 成人精品一区二区免费| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 禁无遮挡网站| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 久久精品91蜜桃| 乱人视频在线观看| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 搡老岳熟女国产| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 51国产日韩欧美| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 女警被强在线播放| 手机成人av网站| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 内射极品少妇av片p| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 99热只有精品国产| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久 | 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 99热这里只有精品一区| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 国产成人福利小说| 51国产日韩欧美| 99热精品在线国产| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| eeuss影院久久| 亚洲五月天丁香| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 一本久久中文字幕| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 欧美日韩黄片免| 天堂√8在线中文| 一本一本综合久久| 看黄色毛片网站| 精品久久久久久,| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 久久6这里有精品| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 91字幕亚洲| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 亚洲av美国av| 亚洲五月天丁香| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产av在哪里看| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 国产日本99.免费观看| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 免费看光身美女| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 国产精华一区二区三区| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 91久久精品电影网| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 免费观看精品视频网站| 亚洲av美国av| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产亚洲欧美98| 91久久精品电影网| 在线观看日韩欧美| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 亚洲av美国av| 午夜久久久久精精品| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产精品影院久久| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 欧美日本视频| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 99久久精品热视频| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 91久久精品电影网| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| www日本在线高清视频| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 午夜免费观看网址| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 久久草成人影院| 精品人妻1区二区| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 免费看日本二区| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 欧美色视频一区免费| 手机成人av网站| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 怎么达到女性高潮| 亚洲av成人av| 国产色婷婷99| 天堂√8在线中文| 日本一本二区三区精品| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲片人在线观看| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 日本 av在线| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 国产熟女xx| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| netflix在线观看网站| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 国产精品一及| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 精品久久久久久久末码| 内射极品少妇av片p| 免费大片18禁| 国产免费男女视频| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| h日本视频在线播放| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 欧美成人a在线观看| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 黄片小视频在线播放| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 最近在线观看免费完整版| av在线蜜桃| 亚洲国产色片| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 午夜免费激情av| 精品国产亚洲在线| 日本一二三区视频观看| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 亚洲国产色片| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 三级毛片av免费| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 色综合婷婷激情| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 日韩欧美三级三区| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 熟女电影av网| 中国美女看黄片| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 嫩草影院入口| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| av在线蜜桃| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 久久亚洲真实| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 精品久久久久久久末码| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 三级毛片av免费| 日本五十路高清| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| www日本黄色视频网| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 国产色婷婷99| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 久久精品国产综合久久久| av在线天堂中文字幕| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 97碰自拍视频| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 亚洲 国产 在线| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产野战对白在线观看| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 色综合婷婷激情| 欧美激情在线99| 在线天堂最新版资源| 欧美色视频一区免费| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 国产97色在线日韩免费| www日本黄色视频网| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 精品国产亚洲在线| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 一区二区三区高清视频在线| aaaaa片日本免费| 午夜a级毛片| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 国产野战对白在线观看| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 久久人妻av系列| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 十八禁网站免费在线| 亚洲国产欧美网| 久久6这里有精品| 欧美日韩黄片免| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 久久香蕉精品热| tocl精华| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 日韩欧美在线二视频| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 搞女人的毛片| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国产三级黄色录像| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 日韩有码中文字幕| 亚洲成人久久性| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人 | 久久久久国内视频| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 亚洲内射少妇av| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| www.999成人在线观看| 国产综合懂色| 亚洲片人在线观看| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 最好的美女福利视频网| 久久草成人影院| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 国产高清激情床上av| 国产精品永久免费网站| www.色视频.com| xxxwww97欧美| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕|