• <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 ?

    Natural history and outcomes of patients with liver cirrhosis complicated by hepatic hydrothorax

    2022-09-27 04:43:26SarahRomeroAndyKHLimGurpreetSinghChamaniKodikaraRachelShingakiWellsLynnaChenSamuelHuiMarcusRobertson
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2022年35期

    Sarah Romero, Andy KH Lim, Gurpreet Singh, Chamani Kodikara, Rachel Shingaki-Wells, Lynna Chen,Samuel Hui, Marcus Robertson

    Abstract BACKGROUND Hepatic hydrothorax (HH) is an uncommon and difficult-to-manage complication of cirrhosis with limited treatment options.AIM To define the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with HH managed with current standards-of-care and to identify factors associated with mortality.METHODS Cirrhotic patients with HH presenting to 3 tertiary centres from 2010 to 2018 were retrospectively identified. HH was defined as pleural effusion in the absence of cardiopulmonary disease. The primary outcomes were overall and transplant-free survival at 12-mo after the index admission. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to determine factors associated with the primary outcomes.RESULTS Overall, 84 patients were included (mean age, 58 years) with a mean model for end-stage liver disease score of 29. Management with diuretics alone achieved long-term resolution of HH in only 12% patients. At least one thoracocentesis was performed in 73.8% patients, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion in 11.9% patients and 33% patients received liver transplantation within 12-mo of index admission. Overall patient survival and transplant-free survival at 12 mo were 68% and 41% respectively. At multivariable analysis, current smoking[hazard ratio (HR) = 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43-21.9, P < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (AKI) (HR = 2.91, 95%CI: 1.21-6.97, P = 0.017) were associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality.CONCLUSION Cirrhotic patients with HH are a challenging population with a poor 12-mo survival despite current treatments. Current smoking and episodes of AKI are potential modifiable factors affecting survival. HH is often refractory of diuretic therapy and transplant assessment should be considered in all cases.

    Key Words: Cirrhosis; Portal hypertension; Hepatic hydrothorax; Ascites; Liver transplantation

    lNTRODUCTlON

    Hepatic hydrothorax (HH) is an uncommon but serious complication occurring in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. HH is defined as the accumulation of more than 500 mL of transudative pleural fluid in a patient with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, where primary cardiopulmonary or malignant aetiologies have been excluded[1]. HH has been reported to occur in 5% to 11% of patients with cirrhosis, with more than 90% of cases occurring in Child-Pugh B or C disease[1,2]. HH is thought to arise from direct passage of fluid from the peritoneal cavity to the pleural cavity through diaphragmatic fenestrations[1]. Nuclear medicine studies, using labelled albumin have confirmed unidirectional passage of fluid from the abdominal to the pleural cavity[3], thus supporting a diaphragmatic defect process.

    Clinically significant HH develops when accumulation of ascites in the pleural cavity exceeds the absorptive capacity of the pleura and patients typically present with shortness of breath, cough, hypoxia or chest discomfort[1,3]. Most cases occur in patients with appreciable ascites, however ascites may not be a prominent finding in up to 42%[1]. HH is most often unilateral and right-sided (59%-80%),however, there are increasing reports of left-sided (12%-17%) or bilateral (8%-24%) involvement[1,4].Similar to the development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in patients with ascites, patients with HH may develop spontaneous infections within the pleural fluid, which are termed spontaneous bacterial empyema (SBEM)[3].

    The clinical management of HH remains complex and challenging. Treatment priorities in cirrhotic patients presenting with a pleural effusion include confirming a diagnosis of HH and excluding alternative pathology, relieving symptoms, preventing pulmonary complications and managing the underlying ascites. Diagnostic or therapeutic thoracocentesis is typically performed to confirm the presence of transudative fluid and to exclude SBEM or alternative pathology[5]. Recently developed American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines state that first-line management should include sodium restriction and diuresis[6]. It is recognised, however, that 20%-30% of patients with cirrhosis and HH will develop persistent or recurrent pleural effusion despite these measures[6]. Refractory HH represents a particularly challenging management issue and patients are often considered for repeat therapeutic thoracocentesis and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement. Liver transplantation (LT) is the definitive treatment for HH, and posttransplant outcomes are comparable to outcomes for alternative indications[6].

    Currently, there remains a paucity of literature examining the natural history and prognostic significance of HH. No randomised controlled trials have been performed in this population and clinical guidelines were only published for the first time in 2020[6]. Previous small studies have indicated the development of HH is associated with significant morbidity and extremely poor survival in the absence of LT[2,7,8]. The aims of this study were to: (1) Evaluate the probability of survival in a cohort of patients with liver cirrhosis presenting with HH and to examine factors associated with mortality; and(2) Provide a descriptive analysis of the treatments and complications associated with HH treatment during hospitalisation.

    MATERlALS AND METHODS

    Study design and setting

    We conducted a multi-centre retrospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis and HH presenting to three Australian metropolitan tertiary hospitals, one of which was a liver transplant centre, over a 9-year period from 2010 to 2018. Across all study sites, patients with decompensated cirrhosis were admitted under a specialist gastroenterology or liver transplant unit. Individual patient management was at the discretion of the attending gastroenterologist.

    Ethics approval

    The Human Research Ethics Committee at Monash Health and Austin Health approved the study as a quality assurance activity and the committee provided a waiver for informed consent (RES-19-0000-343Q).

    Study participants

    International Classification of Diseases (10threvision) codes for cirrhosis and chronic liver disease (K74,K74.6), HH (J 94.8) and pleural effusion (J90, J91) were used to retrospectively identify eligible patients with cirrhosis and HH[9]. The study eligibility criteria were: (1) Adult patients ≥ 18 years; (2) A confirmed diagnosis of cirrhosis, either biopsy-proven or based on clinical complications of cirrhosis; (3)Confirmed diagnosis of pleural effusion, based on imaging (plain X-ray or computed tomography); (4)Evidence of portal hypertension, as established by the presence of oesophageal varices, ascites and/or thrombocytopenia; and (5) Exclusion of cardiopulmonary or malignant pathology as a cause for the pleural fluid collection. Eligible patients were excluded if they had previously undergone LT. Included patients were followed for 12-mo from the date of the index admission.

    Outcomes

    The primary outcomes were 12-mo overall and transplant-free patient survival following index hospital admission with HH. Patients were followed-up from the date of first hospital admission with HH to an endpoint of death, LT or end of the study period. We report the 12-mo overall survival using the endpoint of death, censored for LT; and the 12-mo transplant-free survival using a composite endpoint of death and LT. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of specific treatments of HH and associated complications and to determine patient-specific prognostic factors associated with mortality.

    HH definition and treatment protocols

    HH was defined as the presence of a pleural effusion occurring in a patient with liver cirrhosis where no alternative aetiology was identified. Each patient was reviewed by a specialist hepatologist to ensure that the aetiology of pleural effusion was secondary to HH. Patients were excluded if the pleural effusion was felt to be due to primary infection, cardiopulmonary or malignant pathology.

    Paracentesis was performed following radiological marking and thoracocentesis was performed by an interventional radiologist or the unit treating doctor with ultrasound guidance. In all cases, baseline observations were recorded, and the procedure was performed using sterile technique. Intravenous albumin (100 mL of 20% concentrated human albumin) was administered after every 2 liters of ascites or pleural fluid drained as per institutional protocol. Clinical observations were performed every 30 min for the duration of the procedure. Pleural and ascitic fluid was sent for analysis at the discretion of the physician performing the procedure according to indication and specimen viability. Where available,serum-pleural ascites gradient (SPAG) or serum-ascites albumin gradient values were obtained. SPAG greater than 11 g/L is consistent with a transudate[2], and was used to confirm portal hypertensive pathophysiology. SBEM was defined as pleural fluid with polymorphonuclear count of > 500 cells/mm3or > 250 cells/mm3with a positive culture, where parapneumonic effusion had been excluded[3].Thoracocentesis without significant fluid drainage (diagnostic aspiration) was not considered in this analysis. TIPS insertion was available at all study centres and was performed by interventional radiology.

    Treatment modalities pertaining to HH were categorized as: (1) Medical therapy with diuretics,and/or thoracocentesis; (2) TIPS; and (3) LT. All patients were risk stratified using the model for endstage liver disease (MELD) score which was calculated at the time of presentation for each admission.An in-hospital complication was defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following: Infection,procedural complication (hematoma, pneumothorax, death), acute kidney injury (AKI, defined as at least 1.5-1.9 times baseline or ≥ 26.5 mmol/L increase from baseline[10]), and new-onset acute hepatic encephalopathy which was not present on admission.

    Data sources

    For each patient, baseline demographic data, aetiology of liver disease, comorbidities, medication use,radiology results and laboratory results were extracted from electronic medical records. For patients with recurrent hospital admissions due to HH during the study period, data was collected for each presentation. Death was determined through hospital medical records and confirmed with a patient’s Local Medical Officer if required.

    Statistical analysis

    mean ± SD was used to describe normally distributed continuous data, and median and interquartile range (IQR) for data that was significantly skewed.χ2analysis was used to examine the association between categorical variables. For the primary outcome, we used the Cox proportional hazards regression survival model to analyze the time of onset of HH to death. The time at risk begins at the first admission for HH (the index admission, t0) and patients were censored at the time of LT or study conclusion (365 d after t0). For transplant-free survival analysis, we omitted censoring LT and treated the transplant date as an outcome event. For each readmission, further clinical data was collected for analysis. The model incorporates enduring baseline variables (age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, alcohol intake, aetiology of cirrhosis) as well as a number of time-varying covariates (MELD score, AKI, encephalopathy, treatment-related complications, functional status, and TIPS).

    From the univariable analyses, we included variables with aP< 0.20 into the multivariable model.Through backward elimination steps, we retained covariates with aP< 0.05 and checked the general model fit using partial Cox-Snell residuals. We used fractional polynomials to assist parameterization of continuous variables. The proportional hazards assumption was tested by examining the Schoenfeld residuals. The DFBETA estimates were used to detect influential observations. To validate our findings,we conducted bootstrapping of the Cox regression analysis with 1000 replications to generate bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were conducted with STATA 16.1 (StataCorp, TX,United States), and aP< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    RESULTS

    Patient characteristics

    A total of 246 patients with cirrhosis presenting to hospital with a pleural effusion were identified during the study period, of which 162 were excluded as the pleural effusion did not meet the criteria for HH. The final analysis included 84 patients who had a total of 167 hospital admissions over the study period. The baseline characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 58.3 years, with only 11% patients over the age of 70, and there was a slight predominance of males. All patients had established liver cirrhosis and clinical evidence of portal hypertension. The median MELD score at time of hospital admission was 29 (IQR: 25-33). A diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma was present in 27.4% patients.

    Across all hospital admissions, 59% of patients were treated with lactulose (13% variation within patients between admissions), 27% of patients were treated with rifaximin (average 12% variation within patients between admissions), and 56% of patients were receiving prophylaxis for SBP (average 12% variation within patients between admissions). Prior to hospital presentation with HH, 93%patients were prescribed diuretic therapy, with median furosemide and spironolactone doses of 40 mg and 100 mg per day respectively and 70% of these patients were receiving dual diuretic treatment.

    HH clinical features and management

    The clinical features and management of HH are summarized in Table 2. The majority of the hydrothoraces were unilateral on the right side. Of the 167 episodes of HH, 20 (12.0%) were managed solely with increased diuretics. Concurrent treatment with diuretics and ascitic fluid drainage was commonly performed, with abdominal paracentesis performed during 47 (28.1%) presentations, where the median volume of fluid drained was 5 litres. The proportion of patients requiring thoracocentesis,abdominal paracentesis and the complications rates were similar for readmissions compared to the index admission. However, the dose of diuretics used was higher on readmissions than during the index admission.

    Thoracocentesis and complications:In total, 115 thoracocentesis procedures were performed in 62(73.8%) patients with a median of 3 litres drained per procedure. Thoracocentesis was performed in 53 of 84 (63%) patients during the index admission. A further 62 thoracocentesis procedures wereperformed in 33 of 43 patients who required one or more readmissions. On average, the probability of receiving another thoracocentesis was 77% during each readmission episode. Sufficient laboratory data to perform pleural/ascitic fluid analysis was available in 31% of procedures. Of these, SBEM was detected in 10 (8.7%) thoracocentesis procedures.

    Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients with cirrhosis during the index hospital admission for hepatic hydrothorax (n = 84)

    Blood products, including pooled platelets, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, were administered in 29% of patients prior to or following thoracocentesis. Sixteen patients received an indwelling intercostal catheter for ongoing drainage rather than simple thoracocentesis in the setting of acute instability (n= 4) or refractory disease (n= 12). A pneumothorax complicated 17 (15%) thoracocentesis procedures, of which 7 were managed conservatively, 9 required an intercostal catheter insertion, and 1 patient died. Bleeding complications from thoracocentesis were uncommon and we could not determine if blood product infusions (platelets, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, or prothrombin complexconcentrate) reduced procedural complications or affected patient survival.

    Table 2 Clinical features of hepatic hydrothorax, management, and complications

    Other complications:One or more non-pleural complications were recorded in 80 (48%) of HH admissions. The most frequent complications were AKI in 58 (35%) patients, followed by infection in 31(19%) and new-onset hepatic encephalopathy in 21 (13%). The incidence of these complications was similar for the index admission and readmissions.

    TIPS insertion:Ten (12%) patients received a TIPS insertion, with 2 patients receiving TIPS insertion during the index admission, and 8 patients on a readmission. Significantly more females than males received a TIPS (21%vs4%,P= 0.038), but age and MELD score did not differ between patients who received TIPS and those who did not. No patient who received a TIPS proceeded to LT within 12 mo of the index admission.

    LT: Forty-seven patients (56%) were referred for liver transplant assessment and 28 patients (33%) were successfully transplanted in the 12-mo following their index admission. The median time to transplantation from the index admission was 105 d (IQR: 55-200 d). The effect of LT on survival could not be estimated as there were no deaths amongst the transplanted patients within the study period.

    Hospital length of stay and readmissions

    The median hospital length of stay was 8 d (IQR: 4-17) for the index admission and 6 d (IQR: 4-14) for subsequent hospital readmissions. Within 12-mo of the index admission, 22 (26%) patients had 1 readmission, 9 (11%) had 2 readmissions, and 12 (14%) had ≥ 3 readmissions. In the 43 patients who required readmission, the median time interval between the index admission and the first readmission was 32 d (IQR: 12-74 d). The primary reasons for hospital readmissions were recurrent hydrothorax in 24 (38%) patients and decompensated cirrhosis in 26 (41%). There was strong evidence for an association between the New York Health Association (NYHA) functional class of dyspnoea and total number of readmissions (χ2= 46.2,P< 0.001) but the strength of the association was weak (Kendall’s tau-b= 0.11).Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was required in 13 (15%) patients during the index admission, and 10 (12%) of 83 readmission episodes.

    Mortality

    There were 23 deaths (27.4% of the cohort) within 12-mo of the index admission. The total time-at-risk was 17850 patient-days with a mortality rate of 1.3 deaths per 1000 patient-days. The Kaplan-Meier survivor functions for overall and transplant-free patient survival are shown in Figure 1. Most deaths occurred early after the index admission, with 30-d overall survival of 87% (95%CI: 78%-93%), 45-d survival of 80% (95%CI: 70%-87%), and 12-mo survival of 68% (95%CI: 56%-78%). For transplant-free survival, the 30-d survival was 85% (95%CI: 75%-91%), 45-d survival of 76% (95%CI: 66%-84%), and 12-mo survival of 41% (95%CI: 30%-51%). Most deaths were due to complications of end-stage liver disease and multiorgan failure (75%) or hepatocellular carcinoma (10%), but a small number were due to cardiovascular events (15%). We noted that the mortality rate for current smokers was 5.58 per 1000 patient-days, compared to non-smokers of 0.86 per 1000 patient-days, giving a mortality rate ratio for current smokers of 6.5 (95%CI: 2.5-16.1,P< 0.001).

    Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis

    The results of univariable analyses are summarised in Table 3. Factors consistently associated with an increased hazard of death were current smoking, episodes of AKI, higher MELD score, and hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, when analysing transplant-free survival, diabetes and TIPS insertion were associated with a lower hazard for death or LT while incident pneumothoraces were associated with greater hazard.

    The results of the multivariable analyses are summarised in Table 4. When examining the overall patient survival model, we decided not to include hepatic encephalopathy in the multivariable model as there were only 4 cases of severe encephalopathy on admission which were associated with an increased risk of death. In the transplant-free survival model, age, diabetes, TIPS and incident pneumothoraces were not statistically significant after adjusting for MELD, smoking, AKI, and hepatic encephalopathy.There were no significant statistical interactions between variables in the final models, and the models were a reasonable fit for the data when assessed by partial Cox-Snell residuals.

    Due to the cohort size, we conducted bootstrapped analysis to validate our findings (Table 4). The significance of current smoking and AKI remained robust. In the overall survival model, a current smoker had 8.7 times the hazard of death of a non-smoker or ex-smoker; and one or more episodes of AKI was associated with a 2.9-fold increase in the hazard of death, after allowing for age and MELD score. In the transplant-free survival model, a current smoker had 3.1 times the hazard of death of a non-smoker or ex-smoker; and AKI was associated with a 2.2-fold increase in the hazard of death; after allowing for MELD and hepatic encephalopathy. These findings are represented in Figure 2.

    Other analysis

    To compare with the traditional Cox model, we also performed a competing risks regression analysis(Fine-Gray subdistribution proportional hazards) using the same covariates, with the assumption that all patients were on the active liver transplant waiting list. In this analysis, the effect of smoking and AKI on survival remained significant, and our conclusions remained unchanged. The subhazard ratio(SHR) of smoking on mortality was 6.26 (95%CI: 2.75-14.3),P< 0.001. The SHR of AKI on mortality was 2.60 (95%CI: 1.25-5.36),P= 0.01. The clear effect of smoking can be illustrated by examining the cumulative incidence function for active smokers compared to non-smokers (see Supplementary Figure 1).

    Table 3 Univariable Cox regression on patient survival to 12 mo

    DlSCUSSlON

    HH remains an uncommon but extremely challenging complication in patients with liver cirrhosis. This study represents one of the largest series to analyse the natural history and outcomes of patients with HH and to our knowledge, is the first study to examine factors associated with survival in this population. We demonstrated that development of HH was associated with poor prognosis despite current therapeutic modalities, with a 45-d overall survival of 80% and 12-mo transplant-free survival of 41%. HH is a refractory disease, and the use of diuretics in isolation was rarely effective in this cohort,with 52% of patients experiencing recurrence of HH and rehospitalisation. At multivariable analysis,smoking status and the presence of AKI confer significant additional mortality risk.

    Table 4 Multivariable Cox regression on patient survival to 12 mo

    Figure 1 Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showing transplant-free survival at 12 mo, with liver transplantation and death treated as composite endpoints, and overall patient survival at 12 mo, with patients censored at the time of liver transplantation (ticks on survival curve).

    Hospitalisation with symptomatic HH is an uncommon presentation, with 84 patients recruited over a 9-year period to 3 metropolitan tertiary hospitals. The majority of patients presented with a rightsided pleural effusion and concurrent ascites, which is consistent with previous series[1,2,4]. The median MELD score of 29 in our cohort highlights that HH typically occurs in patients with advanced cirrhosis who often have other decompensating events such as hepatic encephalopathy. The median MELD score in our study was higher than that reported in other smaller studies[2,4,11], which may reflect use of data from a LT centre.

    Patient management in this study aligns with recent AASLD guidelines, which recommend diuresis as the first-line therapy[6]. Most patients in our study were receiving diuretic therapy at the time of hospital presentation, with 70% receiving 2 diuretic agents, however the median doses of furosemide and spironolactone was well below the recommended maximum doses of 160 mg and 400 mg daily respectively[1]. Nonetheless, only 12% patients achieved long-term resolution of HH with diuretic therapy alone. An important limiting factor in relation to diuretic therapy is the propensity for AKI in patients with advanced cirrhosis. AKI was recorded in nearly one-third of presentations, and this was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality. This suggests that diuretic therapy should be titrated cautiously in patients with HH with close monitoring of renal function.

    Figure 2 Multivariate survival analysis. A: Multivariable Cox regression of overall patient survival (censored for transplantation), showing survival estimates for patients with hepatic hydrothorax by smoking and acute kidney injury status, with age and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores held at the mean values;B: Bootstrapped pointwise confidence intervals for survival functions by active smoking status, in the absence of acute kidney injury and with age and MELD held at the means, demonstrating a robust association between active smoking and mortality in patients with hepatic hydrothorax. AKI: Acute kidney injury.

    There remains no consensus on universal diagnostic thoracocentesis in hospitalised patients with HH.In practice, whilst HH may be suspected on the basis of imaging and clinical presentation, thoracocentesis is useful to confirm transudative fluid and exclude other causes of a pleural effusion. We demonstrated that thoracocentesis in the HH population was associated with a significant higher risk of pneumothorax of 15% compared to the standard pneumothorax risk of 6% in non-cirrhotic populations,despite being performed under ultrasound guidance[12]. Shojaeeet al[13] reported that repeat thoracocentesis in cirrhotic patients was associated with a higher rate of major complications compared to thoracocentesis for other aetiologies (8%vs0%). In addition, Xiolet al[5], observed a pneumothorax rate of 25% in cirrhotic patients undergoing serial therapeutic thoracocentesis. Our analysis suggested that pneumothorax complications were associated with lower transplant-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) =2.78; 95%CI: 1.39-5.56], however this was not significant in multivariable analysis. Other series have also suggested that HH requiring thoracocentesis independently confers significant morbidity and increased mortality[7,14]. Given the greater complications associated with thoracocentesis in cirrhotic patients, it was concerning that 74.7% of patients who were readmitted underwent repeat thoracocentesis. Further study is needed to elucidate the cause of the high complication rate and strategies to mitigate this risk.For example, it remains unclear if abdominal paracentesis effectively prevents HH recurrence[1].

    In relation to other treatment modalities, indwelling intercostal catheter drains are thought to carry substantial risk and are not recommended by current guidelines, with some studies observing complication rates of 80%-90%[11,15]. In our cohort, an indwelling intercostal catheter was placed in 19% of patients, most commonly due to respiratory compromise and rapid re-accumulation of pleural fluid. In contrast, consideration of TIPS insertion is recommended by AASLD guidelines, based on evidence of a 70%-80% response rate in patients with refractory HH[3,6,16-18]. The outcomes following TIPS insertion may be comparable to those for management of refractory ascites and although a survival benefit in HH has not been established[19], the study by Badillo and Rockey[2] suggests a trend toward improved survival in patients proceeding to TIPS. Only 10 (17.9%) of the 56 patients in our cohort who were deemed not suitable for LT received TIPS insertion. No overall survival benefit from TIPS insertion was demonstrated, but transplant-free survival was higher (HR = 0.13; 95%CI: 0.02-0.96), as no patient who had TIPS insertion underwent LT.

    Multiple studies have demonstrated that development of HH is associated with a poor prognosis[2,20,21], but mortality is difficult to compare due to heterogeneity between studies[2,4,11,15,21,22]. Our 12-mo transplant-free survival of 41%, however, is comparable to the 12-mo mortality of 57% reported by Badillo and Rockey[2]. In multivariable analysis, increasing age and MELD score, hepatic encephalopathy, development of AKI and active smoking were important factors independently associated with mortality. Given that the majority of deaths in our cohort were observed within 45-d of hospital admission and were most frequently due to complications of end-stage liver disease, we would advocate that in all patients presenting with HH, the appropriateness of transplantation should be considered with early referral for suitable candidates. Indeed, no deaths were recorded in patients who received LT, highlighting the successful outcomes of transplantation in patients with HH.

    The strong association between smoking and poor outcomes has not previously been reported in patients with HH. Our study echoes a growing body of literature demonstrating an association between cigarette smoking and poorer outcomes in patients with liver disease[23,24]. Current smokers with cirrhosis have up to a 3.6 times higher mortality risk and cigarette smoking has been linked with progression of fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease[24], hepatitis C and primary biliary cholangitis and is associated with an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma[23]. Cigarette smoking represents an important modifiable risk factor that should be actively addressed in all patients with cirrhosis but appears critical in the HH population.

    Study strengths and limitations

    This is one of the largest, multicentre studies to investigate the prognostic significance of HH requiring hospitalisation in cirrhotic patients. Study inclusion criteria were broad and pragmatic, and represent generalisable real-world data. The Victorian Liver Transplant Centre was established in 1988 and currently performs over 100 transplants annually. The cohort had comprehensive assessments by gastroenterology specialists to confirm HH, which also assured treatment consistent with current standard-of-care practice guidelines. We used multivariable analysis to allow for confounders of mortality, and were able to identify smoking as a novel factor associated with significantly lower 12-mo survival in patients with HH. This study was able to elucidate the less well-described challenges in HH patients, such as need for ICU admission, hospital readmissions, and blood product requirement.

    This study is limited by its retrospective design, with the inherent risks of missing information or extraction of inaccurate records. Complete pleural fluid analysis was only available in 31% of patients,which limited our ability to detect complications such as SBEM. SBEM has been associated in other studies with high short-term mortality (20% to 38%)[1]. SBEM was detected in 8.7% of thoracocentesis procedures in our study, which is almost certainly an underrepresentation of the true rate and lower than a study by Xiolet al[5], which found SBEM was present in 13% of patients with HH on presentation. Reasons for the low rate of complete pleural fluid analysis included the large number of hospital settings in which thoracocentesis was performed (including the emergency department, ICU,gastroenterology ward, radiology department or other acute hospital wards) with associated heterogeneity in process, incorrect requests for fluid analysis, incorrect tube collection to facilitate fluid analysis, clotting of fluid which precluded analysis, emergency procedures due to patient distress or instability and thoracocentesis performed prior to a diagnosis of HH being made. This reflects the realworld nature of the study and pleural fluid analysis rates were similar across all study sites. As such, we were not able to determine if specific pleural fluid findings were associated with refractory symptoms,rehospitalisation, or poor survival. In addition, factors associated with treatment failure or rehospitalisation such as compliance with diuretics were difficult to discern. The observational nature of the study also limits any causality inferences and eliminates the ability to ensure standardisation, which is particularly relevant to thoracocentesis technique. We could not exclude the possibility that some patients may have been admitted to a non-study hospital, although in practice this would be uncommon, and thus readmissions and complications may be underestimated.

    In order to assess if TIPS may have provided clinical benefit apart from survival, we examined the readmissions, thoracocentesis, or ascitic drainage procedures in patients who received TIPS. Four patients had a single readmission post-TIPS, of which 3 occurred < 30 d and one at 6 mo post-TIPS.Thoracocentesis was performed in 3 of 4 of these readmitted patients, and ascitic drainage in 1 of 4 of these readmitted patients. Due to these low frequencies and different timing of TIPS, we cannot provide a meaningful statistical comparison with patients who did not have TIPS.

    CONCLUSlON

    The development of HH is associated with poor transplant-free survival despite current standards-ofcare and should prompt consideration of the appropriateness of LT in all patients. HH is often refractory to both conservative and invasive management and patients frequently require repeat hospitalisations. Active smoking and AKI may be important modifiable risk factors to reduce mortality in cirrhotic patients with HH.

    ARTlCLE HlGHLlGHTS

    Research background

    Hepatic hydrothorax (HH) is an important complication of cirrhosis, however management is often challenging and the natural history is poorly understood.

    Research motivation

    HH is a significant complication of cirrhosis, with a paucity of literature studying natural history and factors affecting survival.

    Research objectives

    This study sought to: (1) Evaluate factors associated with survival in a cohort of patients hospitalised with HH; and (2) Provide descriptive analysis of treatments, complications and outcomes following HH hospitalisation.

    Research methods

    Cirrhotic patients with HH presenting to three tertiary centres from 2010 to 2018 were retrospectively identified. Patients were followed-up from the date of first hospital admission with HH to an endpoint of death, liver transplantation (LT) or end of the study period. The primary outcomes were overall and transplant free survival at 12 mo after the index admission. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of specific treatments of HH and associated complications and to determine patient-specific prognostic factors associated with mortality.

    Research results

    Only 12% of patients achieved long-term resolution of HH with diuretic therapy alone. 74% of patients required thoracocentesis, with 15% of procedures being complicated by pneumothorax. 12-mo transplant free survival was 41%. 45-d overall survival was 80%.

    Research conclusions

    The development of HH is associated with poor transplant-free survival despite current standards-ofcare and should prompt consideration of the appropriateness of LT in all patients. HH is often refractory to both conservative and invasive management and patients frequently require repeat hospitalisations. Active smoking and acute kidney injury may be important modifiable risk factors to reduce mortality in cirrhotic patients with HH.

    Research perspectives

    This study represents one of the largest series examining survival in persons hospitalised with HH, and importantly has identified modifiable risk factors that may alter the natural history in this challenging patient population.

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:Romero S, Lim AK and Robertson M performed literature review, data analysis and interpretation and manuscript composition and critical revision; Lim AK, Robertson M and Hui S conducted statistical analysis; Romero S, Singh G, Kodikara C, Shangaki-Wells R and Chen L performed data acquisition;Robertson M was responsible for study concept and design; and all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

    lnstitutional review board statement:The Human Research Ethics Committee at Monash Health and Austin Health

    approved the study as a quality assurance activity and the committee provided a waiver for informed consent (RES-19-0000-343Q).

    lnformed consent statement:The informed consent was waived by the Human Research Ethics Committee.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.

    Data sharing statement:Technical appendix, statistical code, and dataset available from the corresponding author at s.romero.md@gmail.com. Patient consent was not obtained for this study, however study data has been anonymised.

    STROBE statement:That authors have read the STROBE statement-checklist, 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:Sarah Romero 0000-0003-2707-6390; Andy KH Lim 0000-0001-7816-4724; Gurpreet Singh 0000-0001-6760-566X; Chamani Kodikara 0000-0002-2381-2875; Rachel Shingaki-Wells 0000-0002-8714-591X; Lynna Chen 0000-0002-7093-2036; Samuel Hui 0000-0002-2839-6209; Marcus Robertson 0000-0002-8848-1771.

    S-Editor:Wang JJ

    L-Editor:A

    P-Editor:Wang JJ

    日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 一区二区三区激情视频| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| a级毛片在线看网站| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 国产在线观看jvid| 免费观看av网站的网址| 日本wwww免费看| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 国产男女内射视频| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| avwww免费| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 国产成人av教育| 人人澡人人妻人| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 欧美在线黄色| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 国产激情久久老熟女| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 两个人看的免费小视频| 999精品在线视频| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| a在线观看视频网站| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 日韩视频在线欧美| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 久久久国产一区二区| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| av有码第一页| 亚洲国产av新网站| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| av视频免费观看在线观看| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 国产精品 国内视频| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 看免费av毛片| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 大码成人一级视频| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 99国产精品99久久久久| 日韩视频在线欧美| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 一区在线观看完整版| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 成在线人永久免费视频| 国产精品免费大片| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久 | 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 曰老女人黄片| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 99久久国产精品久久久| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 一本综合久久免费| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 99国产精品99久久久久| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 丁香欧美五月| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 无限看片的www在线观看| 欧美在线黄色| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 一区二区三区激情视频| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 亚洲色图av天堂| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 亚洲国产看品久久| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 欧美精品av麻豆av| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 成人国语在线视频| 婷婷成人精品国产| 国产男女内射视频| 日韩免费av在线播放| 91av网站免费观看| 成人影院久久| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 丁香六月天网| 中文欧美无线码| 美女福利国产在线| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 操出白浆在线播放| 岛国在线观看网站| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 国产精品免费视频内射| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 黄频高清免费视频| 窝窝影院91人妻| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 久久久国产成人免费| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产精品久久久久成人av| kizo精华| 国产麻豆69| 亚洲色图av天堂| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 久久久国产成人免费| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 久久久国产一区二区| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 免费不卡黄色视频| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 国产色视频综合| 一本久久精品| 大香蕉久久网| www.精华液| www.自偷自拍.com| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 国产成人精品在线电影| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 欧美在线黄色| 成人国产av品久久久| 1024视频免费在线观看| 不卡av一区二区三区| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 久久九九热精品免费| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 成人手机av| 香蕉国产在线看| av网站在线播放免费| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 在线观看66精品国产| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 老司机影院毛片| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 丝袜美足系列| 黄片小视频在线播放| 91麻豆av在线| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 女警被强在线播放| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 久久青草综合色| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 成人国语在线视频| 自线自在国产av| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 9热在线视频观看99| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲第一青青草原| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 在线看a的网站| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 91精品三级在线观看| 国产片内射在线| 搡老岳熟女国产| 一进一出抽搐动态| 久久久久久人人人人人| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 另类精品久久| 久久性视频一级片| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 午夜老司机福利片| 999久久久国产精品视频| 国产精品成人在线| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 国产精品成人在线| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 99九九在线精品视频| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| av视频免费观看在线观看| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 久久青草综合色| 深夜精品福利| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| h视频一区二区三区| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 一区二区三区精品91| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产精品 国内视频| a级毛片黄视频| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 岛国在线观看网站| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 五月天丁香电影| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 精品久久久精品久久久| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 久久 成人 亚洲| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国产区一区二久久| 露出奶头的视频| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 在线av久久热| 成人精品一区二区免费| 美女午夜性视频免费| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 搡老乐熟女国产| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 人妻一区二区av| 免费观看av网站的网址| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 国产单亲对白刺激| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 丁香六月天网| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| av福利片在线| 在线 av 中文字幕| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 在线天堂中文资源库| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 曰老女人黄片| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 久9热在线精品视频| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 丝袜喷水一区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 色94色欧美一区二区| 国产高清videossex| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 大香蕉久久成人网| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| av网站在线播放免费| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 色综合婷婷激情| 久久久欧美国产精品| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 宅男免费午夜| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | av线在线观看网站| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 免费少妇av软件| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 9色porny在线观看| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 精品久久久精品久久久| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 欧美成人午夜精品| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 老司机影院毛片| 我的亚洲天堂| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 欧美大码av| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 欧美日韩精品网址| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| aaaaa片日本免费| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 五月开心婷婷网| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 免费看十八禁软件| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 亚洲第一青青草原| 久久人妻av系列| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 搡老乐熟女国产| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 人妻一区二区av| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看 | 色94色欧美一区二区| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 久久av网站| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 五月天丁香电影| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 怎么达到女性高潮| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲国产欧美网| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 多毛熟女@视频| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 精品久久久久久电影网| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 国产色视频综合| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 精品福利永久在线观看| 一本久久精品| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 国产1区2区3区精品| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| videos熟女内射| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 久久香蕉激情| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 国产成人欧美| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站 | 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 多毛熟女@视频| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 又大又爽又粗| 自线自在国产av| 高清av免费在线| 十八禁网站免费在线| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 欧美在线黄色| av天堂久久9| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| av免费在线观看网站| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 9色porny在线观看| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 五月天丁香电影| a在线观看视频网站| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 两性夫妻黄色片| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 成人免费观看视频高清| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 女性被躁到高潮视频| www.999成人在线观看| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 天天影视国产精品| av国产精品久久久久影院| 一夜夜www| 飞空精品影院首页| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 露出奶头的视频| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 天堂动漫精品| a级毛片黄视频| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 久久亚洲真实| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 嫩草影视91久久| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 久久久精品区二区三区| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区 | 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 99久久国产精品久久久| 亚洲第一青青草原| 五月天丁香电影| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲第一青青草原| 在线 av 中文字幕| 国产麻豆69| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 成人永久免费在线观看视频 | 国产成人系列免费观看| 窝窝影院91人妻| 又大又爽又粗| 国产又爽黄色视频| 精品少妇内射三级| 成人手机av| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 热re99久久国产66热| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 久久久久国内视频| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 日本av免费视频播放| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| av福利片在线| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 女人精品久久久久毛片|