• <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 ?

    Impact of frailty on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography outcomes in nonagenarians: A United States national experience

    2024-04-21 12:17:18SanketDhirubhaiBasidaDushyantSinghDahiyaMuhammadNadeemYousafBrindaBasidaBhanuSivaMohanPinnamManeshKumarGangwaniHassamAliSahibSinghYashShahDakshAhluwaliaMihirPrakashShahSaurabhChandanNeilSharmaShyamThakkar

    Sanket Dhirubhai Basida,Dushyant Singh Dahiya,Muhammad Nadeem Yousaf,Brinda Basida,Bhanu Siva Mohan Pinnam,Manesh Kumar Gangwani,Hassam Ali,Sahib Singh,Yash R Shah,Daksh Ahluwalia,Mihir Prakash Shah,Saurabh Chandan,Neil R Sharma,Shyam Thakkar

    Abstract BACKGROUND Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential therapeutic tool for biliary and pancreatic diseases.Frail and elderly patients,especially those aged ≥ 90 years are generally considered a higher-risk population for ERCP-related complications.AIM To investigate outcomes of ERCP in the Non-agenarian population (≥ 90 years) concerning Frailty.METHODS This is a cohort study using the 2018-2020 National Readmission Database.Patients aged ≥ 90 were identified who underwent ERCP,using the international classification of diseases-10 code with clinical modification.Johns Hopkins’s adjusted clinical groups frailty indicator was used to classify patients as frail and non-frail.The primary outcome was mortality,and the secondary outcomes were morbidity and the 30 d readmission rate related to ERCP.We used univariate and multivariate regression models for analysis.RESULTS A total of 9448 patients were admitted for any indications of ERCP.Frail and non-frail patients were 3445 (36.46%)and 6003 (63.53%) respectively.Indications for ERCP were Choledocholithiasis (74.84%),Biliary pancreatitis(9.19%),Pancreatico-biliary cancer (7.6%),Biliary stricture (4.84%),and Cholangitis (1.51%).Mortality rates were higher in frail group [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.68,P=0.02].The Intra-procedural complications were insignificant between the two groups which included bleeding (aOR=0.72,P=0.67),accidental punctures/lacerations(aOR=0.77,P=0.5),and mechanical ventilation rates (aOR=1.19,P=0.6).Post-ERCP complication rate was similar for bleeding (aOR=0.72,P=0.41) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (aOR=1.4,P=0.44).Frail patients had a longer length of stay (6.7 d vs 5.5 d) and higher mean total charges of hospitalization ($78807 vs $71392) compared to controls (P <0.001).The 30 d all-cause readmission rates between frail and non-frail patients were similar (P=0.96).CONCLUSION There was a significantly higher mortality risk and healthcare burden amongst nonagenarian frail patients undergoing ERCP compared to non-frail.Larger studies are warranted to investigate and mitigate modifiable risk factors.

    Key Words: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography;Nonagenarians;Frailty;Mortality;Healthcare burden

    INTRODUCTION

    Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is indeed a high-risk endoscopic procedure to assess and treat conditions involving the pancreaticobiliary ductal system.ERCP was initially developed in the late 1960s as a diagnostic procedure.Over time,it has evolved from being primarily a diagnostic tool to a therapeutic procedure,enabling the treatment of various conditions like choledocholithiasis,acute cholangitis,bile duct strictures,etc.[1,2].Both ERCP and procedures associated with therapeutic ERCP have the potential for complications,such as bleeding,pancreatitis,duodenum and pancreaticobiliary perforations,and cardiopulmonary distress[3,4].Mortality rates up to 6%-7% related to ERCP procedures have also been documented[5-7].

    While age has traditionally been employed as a predictor of clinical outcomes in ERCP,it alone proves insufficient for a comprehensive assessment of risk-benefit trade-offs.A more holistic approach is essential to gauge physiological resilience and functional capacity,which are crucial in determining overall risk.Several studies have employed the use of Johns Hopkins’s Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty indicator to overcome this[8-10].Frailty encompasses a physiological decline in function,manifesting as an inability to adapt and respond to stressors[11].It should be perceived as a vulnerability stemming from a combination of internal physiological factors and external stressors.

    Several studies have shown adverse surgical outcomes in frail patients including Orthopedic,Urological,and Otolaryngological procedures[10,12-14].However,the data on ERCP,especially in the nonagenarian population,is scarce.Therefore,we aimed to investigate the impact of frailty on ERCP-related hospitalization in this high-risk population.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Data sources

    Data was extracted from the National Readmission Database (NRD) from 2018 to 2020.The NRD is part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project,sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.The NRD contains data from approximately 18 million discharges each year across 28 geographically dispersed states.This data set accounts for 60% of the total United States resident population,59% of all United States hospitalizations,and includes all tax-payer data[15].The present study was deemed exempt by the institutional review board because the database contained de-identified data sets with prior ethical committee approval.The NRD is publicly available and can be procured from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project website[15].

    Patient selection

    We identified 9448 patients who underwent elective or emergent ERCP,aged ≥ 90 years,using previously validatedInternational Classification of Diseases,Tenth Revision,and Clinical Modification(ICD-10-CM) codes[16].These patients were stratified into two cohorts based on Johns Hopkins’ ACG frailty indicator.These codes and strategies were validated and used in the previous studies[17].Patients were excluded if they were aged <90 years and were admitted in December.

    Baseline variables

    We used the variables provided in the NRD by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to identify patients’ baseline characteristics,including age,sex,primary expected payer,median household income category by patient zip code,and hospital information such as bed size,teaching status,and location.We usedICD-10-CMcodes given by the Elixhauser comorbidity index calculator provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to report hypertension,diabetes,hyperlipidemia,peripheral vascular disease,chronic heart failure,chronic pulmonary disease,anemia,obesity,smoking,and coagulopathy (Supplementary Table 1).Frailty was defined using Johns Hopkins’s ACG frailty indicator,which is based on a binary classification system,considering numerous clinical conditions as defined in Supplementary Table 1.Patients were classed as either frail or non-frail.

    Data analysis

    Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata,version 17.0 BE (StataCorp,College Station,TX,United States).The NRD is based on a complex sampling design that includes stratification,clustering,and weighting.Stata has a set of commands specifically designed to analyze the data while taking into consideration its complex design and produce nationally representative unbiased results,variance estimates,andP-values.A weighting of patient-level observations was implemented to obtain estimates for the entire population who underwent ERCP in the United States.

    The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for comparing continuous variables andχ2tests for categorical variables.A multivariate regression analysis was used to calculate odds of all-cause 30 d readmission,inpatient mortality,length of stay,and total hospital charge (THC) after appropriately adjusting for age,gender,Elixhauser index,type of insurance,mean household income,and hospital characteristics,which included size,teaching status,and location.

    The THC from 2018 through 2020 was adjusted for inflation in the healthcare sector using the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator maintained by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Multivariate regression models were used to adjust for confounders and were built using the following method:Univariate regression analyses on possible confounding factors were used to calculate the unadjusted odds ratio.Those withP-value ≤ 0.2 were chosen as potential confounding factors,along with clinical judgment.Indications for ERCP,which could also potentially be a part of Elixhauser's co-morbidity score were not included in the final analysis to prevent co-linearity.Potential confounding factors were then added to the final multivariate regression model.Missing values were not imputed.Two-sidedP-values <0.05 were taken to indicate statistical significance.We adhered to all methodological standards[18].

    Outcome measures

    The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality following ERCP.Secondary outcomes were divided into in-hospital morbidity and 30 d readmission rates.In-hospital morbidity outcomes were Intra-procedural and post-procedural complications rates.Intra-procedural complications included bleeding,accidental punctures/lacerations of the biliary or gastrointestinal (GI) tract,and the need for mechanical ventilation.Post-procedural complications included bleeding (and post-ERCP pancreatitis.We described theICD-10-CMcoding of each outcome in Supplementary Table 1.

    Unmeasured bias analysis and sensitivity analysis

    To evaluate the robustness of our findings,we conducted a falsification endpoint and E-value analysis to determine the validity of the study[19].The E-value identifies the minimum strength of association that unmeasured confounders may need to have with both treatment and outcome,conditional on measured covariates,to fully explain the observed association.This estimates what the relative risk may have to be for any unmeasured confounder to overcome the observed association of study intervention with study outcomes.

    RESULTS

    Comparative analysis of hospitalization characteristics between frail and non-frail patients

    Amongst patients aged 90 years or above,a total of 9448 underwent ERCP from 2018-2020 in the United States,excluding December (Figure 1).Of them,3445 (36.46%) were frail while 6003 (63.53%) were non-frail.Females constituted 2305(66.92%) and 3853 (64.19%) of Frail and the Non-frail population respectively.From a co-morbidity perspective,the number of patients progressively increased with the increasing score of the Elixhauser co-morbidity index.81.29% of Frail patients had an Elixhauser score of 3 while in the non-frail group,it was 72.57% (P<0.001).Frail patients had a higher proportion of Skilled nursing facility discharges (37.5%) while non-frail patients had a higher proportion of Routine/home discharges (49.18%) (P<0.001).Frail patients had higher rates of sphincterotomies compared to non-frail patients(7.76%vs5.62%;P=0.002).

    Figure 1 Patient selection flowchart. ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

    Comparative analysis of morbidity during index hospitalization

    The intraprocedural complications including bleeding [0.11%vs0.15%;adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.72] and accidental puncture/laceration of the biliary or GI tract (0.54%vs0.65%;aOR: 0.77) between the frail and non-frail patients were insignificant (P>0.05).Post-procedural complications including bleeding (0.49%vs0.67%;aOR: 0.72) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (0.58%vs0.4%;aOR: 1.4) were also insignificant between the two groups (P=0.4).

    Indication of index hospitalization,mortality predictors,and healthcare utilization

    Indications for ERCP included choledocholithiasis (74.84%),biliary pancreatitis (9.19%),pancreaticobiliary cancer (7.6%),biliary stricture (4.84%),idiopathic pancreatitis (1.89%),cholangitis (1.51%),abnormal liver function tests (0.08%),and pancreatic pseudocyst (0.02%) shown in Figure 2.The mortality rate in frail patients was 2.03%vs1.13% (aOR=1.68%;P=0.02) in non-frail patients.Female sex (aOR: 0.5,P=0.02),stent placement (aOR: 9.8,P=0.006),intraprocedural puncture/laceration of the biliary or GI tract (aOR: 11.3,P=0.004) and post ERCP pancreatitis (aOR: 18.3,P<0.001) were found to be an independent risk factor for mortality in the frail nonagenarian population (Figure 3).Frail patients also had a higher mean length of hospital stay (6.7 dvs5.5 d;P<0.001) and mean total hospital charges ($80490vs$72878;P<0.001) compared to non-frail patients.

    Figure 2 Indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. LFTs: Liver function test.

    Figure 3 Predictors of mortality in frail nonagenarians undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

    Readmission rates and causes

    The 30 d all-cause readmission rates between frail and non-frail patients were similar.(8.84%vs8.57%,aOR: 0.99;P=0.96).The most common causes of readmission included sepsis (44.8%),aspiration pneumonitis (13.03%),hypertensive heart disease with heart failure (19.7%),urinary tract infection (12.87%) and choledocholithiasis (12.29%).

    DISCUSSION

    To the best of our knowledge,this is the inaugural investigation employing the validated John Hopkins ACG frailty indicator to analyze clinical outcomes among nonagenarian patients who have undergone ERCP in the United States.In this study encompassing a national cross-section,we have noted several significant findings.First and foremost,frailty has exhibited an association with increased mortality rates following ERCP within this specific population,regardless of whether the admission was elective or emergent.Secondly,frailty has also shown a correlation with extended hospitalization durations and higher total hospital costs.Thirdly,the morbidity linked to the procedure and the readmission rates within 30 d did not exhibit substantial variations between frail and non-frail individuals.

    Our study found that frail nonagenarian patients had a higher mortality risk compared to non-frail patients undergoing ERCP (aOR: 1.68,P=0.02).Frailty has been identified as an independent risk factor of mortality across various surgical specialties[20].Acostaet al[21] found a similar association between frailty and mortality in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy for GI bleeding[21].Traditionally,older age and/or multiple co-morbidities have been misunderstood as frailty.However,Frailty should be seen as a susceptibility to various internal physiological elements and external pressures.This phenomenon can manifest at different paces in various individuals,transcending age and impacting younger patients who have chronic illnesses or cognitive impairments[22].Frail individuals tend to exhibit alterations in glucose metabolism,disruptions in the autonomic nervous system,modifications in the reninangiotensin system and mitochondrial function,as well as irregularities in stress response systems[17].These factors collectively contribute to unfavorable outcomes in these patients post-ERCP,as shown in our study.As for other predictors,female sex (aOR: 0.5,P=0.02),stent placement (aOR: 9.8,P=0.006),intraprocedural puncture/laceration of the biliary or GI tract (aOR: 11.3,P=0.004) and Post ERCP pancreatitis (aOR: 18.3,P<0.001) were found to be an independent risk factor for mortality in the frail nonagenarian population.Co-morbidities as defined by the Elixhauser co-morbidity index were significant in univariate analysis but lost their significance in the multivariate model to contribute towards mortality post-ERCP.This further re-reinforces the clinical significance of frailty in measuring outcomes.

    We analyzed that the intra-procedural and post-procedural complication rates were insignificant between frail and non-frail patients,regardless of frailty and emergency of the procedure.Several studies have investigated whether elderly patients are at a higher risk for post-ERCP complications compared to their younger counterparts[23-26].Sobaniet al[27]showed that emergency ERCP and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 2 are associated with an increased adverse event rate in elderly patients[27].Tabaket al[28] in their prospective study of 614 patients found that patients with a CCI ≥ 2 and difficult cannulation are associated with an increased overall adverse events rate,while age ≥ 80 years is not[28].Takahashiet al[29] in their study found that age is a risk factor for increased rate of complications following ERCP[29].There are several limitations in these studies including smaller sample size,overreliance on age and co-morbidities,and exclusion of the concept of frailty from the study.

    In our study,frail patients exhibited a prolonged length of hospital stays compared to their non-frail counterparts (6.7 dvs5.5 d;P<0.001).Additionally,the mean total hospital cost for frail individuals was significantly higher,reaching$80490 compared to $72878 for non-frail individuals (P<0.001).The observed numbers underscore the clinical significance of frailty,as they contribute to a notable increase in both healthcare costs and burden.Previous studies done by McDermottet al[30] and Khandelwalet al[31] have shown a similar association between frailty and increased mean length of hospital stay[30,31].As previously discussed,altered physiological responses to stressors increase recovery time.The economic and healthcare implications of frailty emphasize the need for targeted interventions and strategies to address and mitigate the impact of frailty on both patient outcomes and healthcare resources.

    The comparison of 30 d readmission rates between frail and non-frail patients yielded non-statistically significant results (P=0.96).This discovery holds particular significance when it comes to the risk stratification of patients who might otherwise be overlooked or denied ERCP.While our study stands as the pioneering effort to employ frailty as a risk stratification tool for ERCP in the nonagenarian population,prior investigations have adopted a more limited approach by stratifying patients based on age.We consider this approach to be outdated for comprehending physiological reserve and capacity.Relatively older studies have demonstrated that increasing age among ERCP patients was not correlated with 30 d readmissions[32].As our study was specifically tailored to assess in-patient cases,it remains uncertain how frailty might impact ERCP patients in the outpatient setting,which has been associated with a marginally higher readmission rate[33].Additionally,the study is limited by only capturing patients with frailty who underwent ERCP.For patients deemed poor procedural candidates secondary to frailty,ERCP would not have occurred.This likely reflects an underestimation of the impact frailty has on ERCP outcomes.

    Our study exhibits several strengths and,at the same time,some limitations.One notable strength is our utilization of a study population derived from the NRD,one of the largest and most ethnically diverse inpatient databases in the United States.Consequently,the findings from our study can be extrapolated to encompass all index hospitalizations and readmissions across the nation.Moreover,our study is among the few that scrutinize clinical outcomes of ERCP in frail nonagenarians at a national level,thereby providing a comprehensive perspective on the United States healthcare landscape.However,we must acknowledge the limitations associated with our study.Admissions were identified based solely on the primary diagnosis,aligning with the best practice methodologies outlined by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.This established protocol ensures the accurate identification of cases requiring ERCP.However,it is important to note that there is a probability for patients to go undetected if their admission was a result of the disease,but the primary diagnosis did not reflect this.

    Nonetheless,despite these limitations,we believe that the substantial sample size and our comprehensive analytical approach significantly contribute to a more profound understanding of the clinical outcomes of ERCP in the fragile nonagenarian population in the United States.

    CONCLUSION

    Identifying factors affecting inpatient mortality following ERCP is paramount as it furnishes therapeutic endoscopists with practical,real-world insights into individuals at an elevated risk of such outcomes.This information is instrumental in devising strategies that effectively reduce the mortality rates and the healthcare burden associated with these procedures.Furthermore,it is important to employ the concept of Frailty in daily clinical practice to help make better decisions in routine patient care.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) stands as a vital therapeutic instrument in the management of biliary and pancreatic disorders.Individuals classified as frail and elderly,particularly those aged ≥ 90 years,are commonly perceived as a high-risk demographic concerning complications associated with ERCP.

    Research motivation

    There is a paucity of literature and data in terms of large-scale multicenter retrospective studies that have investigated an association between Frailty and ERCP outcomes in the nonagenarian population.

    Research objectives

    To determine the association between Frailty and ERCP outcomes in the nonagenarian population.Outcomes included mortality,intra and post-procedural complication rates,length of hospital stay,healthcare cost,and 30 d readmission rates.

    Research methods

    The 2018-2020 national readmission database was queried for patients aged ≥ 90 who underwent ERCP,using the international classification of diseases-10 code with clinical modification.Johns Hopkins’s adjusted clinical groups frailty indicator was used to classify patients as frail and non-frail.The primary outcome was mortality,and the secondary outcomes were morbidity and the 30 d readmission rate related to ERCP.We used univariate and multivariate regression models for analysis.

    Research results

    The population size included 9448 patients who were admitted for any indications of ERCP.Frail and non-frail patients were 3445 (36.46%) and 6003 (63.53%) respectively.Frail patients had higher mortality rates compared to non-frail individuals [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.68,P=0.02].There was no significant difference in intraprocedural complication rates,which included bleeding (aOR=0.72,P=0.67),accidental punctures/lacerations (aOR=0.77,P=0.5),and mechanical ventilation rates (aOR=1.19,P=0.6),between the two groups.Post-ERCP complication rate was similar for bleeding (aOR=0.72,P=0.41) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (aOR=1.4,P=0.44).Frail patients had a longer length of stay (6.7 dvs5.5 d) and higher mean total charges of hospitalization ($78807vs$71392) compared to controls (P<0.001).The 30 d all-cause readmission rates between frail and non-frail patients were similar (aOR: 0.99;P=0.96).

    Research conclusions

    Frailty is associated with higher mortality post-ERCP in the nonagenarian population.Frailty is also associated with higher in-hospital length of stay and hospital costs.

    Research perspectives

    There is a need for further prospective studies and randomized clinical trials to evaluate the impact of frailty in the nonagenarian population undergoing ERCP.

    FOOTNOTES

    Co-first authors:Sanket Dhirubhai Basida and Dushyant Singh Dahiya.

    Author contributions:Basida SD,Dahiya DS,and Yousaf MN contributed to conception and design;Basida SD,Ali H,Ahluwalia D,Shah MP,and Singh S contributed to administrative support;Basida SD,Basida B,Shah YR,Pinnam BSM,Ahluwalia D,Shah MP,Ali H,Gangwani MK,Chandan S,and Dahiya DS contributed to provision,collection,and assembly of data;Basida SD,Yousaf MN,Dahiya DS,Ali H,Gangwani MK,Chandan S,Basida B,Shah YR,Pinnam BSM,Singh S,Sharma NR,and Thakkar S contributed to the review of the literature and drafting the manuscript;Basida SD,Yousaf MN,Dahiya DS,Chandan S,Sharma NR,and Thakkar S contributed to revision of key components of the manuscript and final approval of manuscript;Basida SD,Yousaf MN,Dahiya DS,Basida B,Pinnam BSM,Gangwani MK,Ali H,Singh S,Shah YR,Ahluwalia D,Shah MP,Chandan S,Sharma NR and Thakkar S are accountable for all aspects of the work.

    Institutional review board statement:This study,utilizing the National (or Nationwide) Readmission Database (NRD),is exempt from full Institutional Review Board (IRB) review as it involves secondary analysis of de-identified data collected for administrative purposes.The exemption is granted by federal regulations governing research involving publicly available data and poses minimal risk to subjects,maintaining their anonymity.No identifiable information was used,ensuring strict confidentiality.This exemption aligns with ethical standards and guidelines.

    Informed consent statement:This letter is to confirm that our study did not require informed consent as it did not contain de-identified.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:The authors have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest to disclose.

    Data sharing statement:Not available.

    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 BY-NC 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 non-commercial.See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Country/Territory of origin:United States

    ORCID number:Sanket Dhirubhai Basida 0000-0002-1029-6453;Dushyant Singh Dahiya 0000-0002-8544-9039;Muhammad Nadeem Yousaf 0000-0002-7979-8929;Manesh Kumar Gangwani 0000-0002-3931-6163;Hassam Ali 0000-0001-5546-9197;Saurabh Chandan 0000-0002-2661-6693;Neil R Sharma 0000-0001-8567-5450;Shyam Thakkar 0000-0001-8671-9961.

    Corresponding Author's Membership in Professional Societies:American College of Gastroenterology;American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy;American Gastroenterological Association.

    S-Editor:Liu H

    L-Editor:A

    P-Editor:Cai YX

    99久久精品热视频| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 国产高清三级在线| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 观看美女的网站| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 欧美激情在线99| 成年免费大片在线观看| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av | 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 国产精品野战在线观看| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 天天添夜夜摸| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 午夜福利在线在线| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 日本 av在线| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 波多野结衣高清作品| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 久久这里只有精品中国| 久久久久九九精品影院| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 久久香蕉国产精品| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 看黄色毛片网站| 国产三级中文精品| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 欧美日韩黄片免| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 少妇丰满av| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 国产高清三级在线| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 99视频精品全部免费 在线 | 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 全区人妻精品视频| 美女免费视频网站| 日本免费a在线| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 毛片女人毛片| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 不卡一级毛片| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 免费观看精品视频网站| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 观看美女的网站| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 手机成人av网站| 草草在线视频免费看| 欧美激情在线99| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 久9热在线精品视频| 一本久久中文字幕| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 国产日本99.免费观看| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 97碰自拍视频| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 欧美日韩精品网址| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 在线看三级毛片| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 88av欧美| 美女高潮的动态| 成年版毛片免费区| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 黄色女人牲交| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 色综合婷婷激情| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 国产高清videossex| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 色综合站精品国产| 91麻豆av在线| 不卡一级毛片| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 亚洲电影在线观看av| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 97超视频在线观看视频| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产黄片美女视频| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 日本成人三级电影网站| 亚洲无线在线观看| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| xxx96com| 搡老岳熟女国产| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 日本黄色片子视频| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 精品久久久久久,| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 久久精品国产综合久久久| av欧美777| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 香蕉久久夜色| 天堂动漫精品| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 黄色 视频免费看| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 日本一本二区三区精品| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 一本一本综合久久| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 久久精品人妻少妇| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 久久久久久人人人人人| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 国产成人精品无人区| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 精品久久久久久,| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 伦理电影免费视频| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看 | 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 午夜两性在线视频| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产真实乱freesex| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 嫩草影院精品99| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 久99久视频精品免费| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 禁无遮挡网站| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看 | 国产一区二区三区视频了| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 亚洲国产看品久久| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 全区人妻精品视频| 精品久久久久久久末码| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 国产69精品久久久久777片 | 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 色av中文字幕| av在线蜜桃| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 两个人看的免费小视频| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 丰满的人妻完整版| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 日本一二三区视频观看| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 久久这里只有精品19| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| a级毛片在线看网站| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 久久这里只有精品中国| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 两个人视频免费观看高清| 91老司机精品| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 一a级毛片在线观看| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 此物有八面人人有两片| 毛片女人毛片| 成人国产综合亚洲| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| aaaaa片日本免费| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 久久精品91蜜桃| 日本免费a在线| 日日夜夜操网爽| 最新中文字幕久久久久 | 亚洲午夜理论影院| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 成人18禁在线播放| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 国产成人av教育| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 99re在线观看精品视频| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 日本五十路高清| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 国产高潮美女av| 日韩高清综合在线| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 青草久久国产| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 久久久久九九精品影院| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 变态另类丝袜制服| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 午夜免费观看网址| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 91老司机精品| 国产成人福利小说| 窝窝影院91人妻| 天堂动漫精品| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 日日夜夜操网爽| 天堂√8在线中文| 国产高清三级在线| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| or卡值多少钱| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 舔av片在线| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 黄片小视频在线播放| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 亚洲无线观看免费| 色视频www国产| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 精品日产1卡2卡| 日本成人三级电影网站| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 成人无遮挡网站| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 一本一本综合久久| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 国产三级黄色录像| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 午夜福利在线在线| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 免费看光身美女| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| netflix在线观看网站| 午夜免费观看网址| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 夜夜爽天天搞| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 国产亚洲欧美98| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 久久性视频一级片| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 久久伊人香网站| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 俺也久久电影网| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 窝窝影院91人妻| 舔av片在线| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 久久精品91蜜桃| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 91老司机精品| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 一区二区三区激情视频| 亚洲在线观看片| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 久久久久久久久中文| 日韩欧美免费精品| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 日本一二三区视频观看| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 99久久精品一区二区三区| 露出奶头的视频| 日本熟妇午夜| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 91字幕亚洲| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 在线国产一区二区在线| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 午夜激情欧美在线| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 一本久久中文字幕| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 色综合站精品国产| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 很黄的视频免费| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 午夜久久久久精精品| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 黄色 视频免费看| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 观看免费一级毛片| 舔av片在线| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| tocl精华| 999久久久国产精品视频| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 999久久久国产精品视频| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 悠悠久久av| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 欧美日韩黄片免| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看 | 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 美女高潮的动态| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 国产精品 国内视频| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| www.999成人在线观看| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产精品永久免费网站| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 午夜视频精品福利| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 很黄的视频免费| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| a级毛片在线看网站| 91字幕亚洲| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 久久精品91蜜桃| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 国产免费男女视频| 1024手机看黄色片| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 91老司机精品| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 身体一侧抽搐| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 麻豆av在线久日| 日本五十路高清| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产乱人视频| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 极品教师在线免费播放| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 不卡av一区二区三区| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 嫩草影视91久久| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 香蕉丝袜av| 黄色 视频免费看| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 黄色成人免费大全| 国产亚洲欧美98| 十八禁网站免费在线| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 1024香蕉在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 欧美色视频一区免费| 午夜福利欧美成人| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 精品人妻1区二区| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲中文av在线| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 色视频www国产| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 国产日本99.免费观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 在线免费观看的www视频| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 热99re8久久精品国产| 午夜免费观看网址| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| bbb黄色大片| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 操出白浆在线播放| 色吧在线观看| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| www国产在线视频色| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽|