Endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of early esophageal and gastric cancer - initial experience of a western center

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is a new Japanese technique characterized by en-bloc resection of the entire lesion irrespective of size, with lower local recurrence when compared to endoscopic mucosal resection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, early results and complications of the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique for treating early gastric and esophageal cancer at the Endoscopic Unit of Clinics Hospital and Cancer Institute of the São Paulo University. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients underwent endoscopic resection using the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique for early gastric or esophageal cancer. The patients were evaluated prospectively as to the executability of the technique, the short-term results of the procedure and complications. RESULTS: Sixteen gastric adenocarcinoma lesions and six esophageal squamous carcinoma lesions were resected. In the stomach, the mean diameter of the lesions was 16.2 mm (0.6-3.5 mm). Eight lesions were type IIa + IIc, four were type IIa and four IIc, with thirteen being well differentiated and three undifferentiated. Regarding the degree of invasion, five were M2, seven were M3, two were Sm1 and one was Sm2. The mean duration of the procedures was 85 min (20-160 min). In the esophagus, all of the lesions were type IIb, with a mean diameter of 17.8 mm (6-30 mm). Regarding the degree of invasion, three were M1, one was M2, one was M3 and one was Sm1. All had free lateral and deep margins. The mean time of the procedure was 78 min (20-150 min). CONCLUSION: The endoscopic submucosal dissection technique was feasible in our service with a high success rate

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions

Global burden and strength of evidence for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background: Understanding the health consequences associated with exposure to risk factors is necessary to inform public health policy and practice. To systematically quantify the contributions of risk factor exposures to specific health outcomes, the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 aims to provide comprehensive estimates of exposure levels, relative health risks, and attributable burden of disease for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, from 1990 to 2021. Methods: The GBD 2021 risk factor analysis used data from 54 561 total distinct sources to produce epidemiological estimates for 88 risk factors and their associated health outcomes for a total of 631 risk–outcome pairs. Pairs were included on the basis of data-driven determination of a risk–outcome association. Age-sex-location-year-specific estimates were generated at global, regional, and national levels. Our approach followed the comparative risk assessment framework predicated on a causal web of hierarchically organised, potentially combinative, modifiable risks. Relative risks (RRs) of a given outcome occurring as a function of risk factor exposure were estimated separately for each risk–outcome pair, and summary exposure values (SEVs), representing risk-weighted exposure prevalence, and theoretical minimum risk exposure levels (TMRELs) were estimated for each risk factor. These estimates were used to calculate the population attributable fraction (PAF; ie, the proportional change in health risk that would occur if exposure to a risk factor were reduced to the TMREL). The product of PAFs and disease burden associated with a given outcome, measured in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), yielded measures of attributable burden (ie, the proportion of total disease burden attributable to a particular risk factor or combination of risk factors). Adjustments for mediation were applied to account for relationships involving risk factors that act indirectly on outcomes via intermediate risks. Attributable burden estimates were stratified by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile and presented as counts, age-standardised rates, and rankings. To complement estimates of RR and attributable burden, newly developed burden of proof risk function (BPRF) methods were applied to yield supplementary, conservative interpretations of risk–outcome associations based on the consistency of underlying evidence, accounting for unexplained heterogeneity between input data from different studies. Estimates reported represent the mean value across 500 draws from the estimate's distribution, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) calculated as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile values across the draws. Findings: Among the specific risk factors analysed for this study, particulate matter air pollution was the leading contributor to the global disease burden in 2021, contributing 8·0% (95% UI 6·7–9·4) of total DALYs, followed by high systolic blood pressure (SBP; 7·8% [6·4–9·2]), smoking (5·7% [4·7–6·8]), low birthweight and short gestation (5·6% [4·8–6·3]), and high fasting plasma glucose (FPG; 5·4% [4·8–6·0]). For younger demographics (ie, those aged 0–4 years and 5–14 years), risks such as low birthweight and short gestation and unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing (WaSH) were among the leading risk factors, while for older age groups, metabolic risks such as high SBP, high body-mass index (BMI), high FPG, and high LDL cholesterol had a greater impact. From 2000 to 2021, there was an observable shift in global health challenges, marked by a decline in the number of all-age DALYs broadly attributable to behavioural risks (decrease of 20·7% [13·9–27·7]) and environmental and occupational risks (decrease of 22·0% [15·5–28·8]), coupled with a 49·4% (42·3–56·9) increase in DALYs attributable to metabolic risks, all reflecting ageing populations and changing lifestyles on a global scale. Age-standardised global DALY rates attributable to high BMI and high FPG rose considerably (15·7% [9·9–21·7] for high BMI and 7·9% [3·3–12·9] for high FPG) over this period, with exposure to these risks increasing annually at rates of 1·8% (1·6–1·9) for high BMI and 1·3% (1·1–1·5) for high FPG. By contrast, the global risk-attributable burden and exposure to many other risk factors declined, notably for risks such as child growth failure and unsafe water source, with age-standardised attributable DALYs decreasing by 71·5% (64·4–78·8) for child growth failure and 66·3% (60·2–72·0) for unsafe water source. We separated risk factors into three groups according to trajectory over time: those with a decreasing attributable burden, due largely to declining risk exposure (eg, diet high in trans-fat and household air pollution) but also to proportionally smaller child and youth populations (eg, child and maternal malnutrition); those for which the burden increased moderately in spite of declining risk exposure, due largely to population ageing (eg, smoking); and those for which the burden increased considerably due to both increasing risk exposure and population ageing (eg, ambient particulate matter air pollution, high BMI, high FPG, and high SBP). Interpretation: Substantial progress has been made in reducing the global disease burden attributable to a range of risk factors, particularly those related to maternal and child health, WaSH, and household air pollution. Maintaining efforts to minimise the impact of these risk factors, especially in low SDI locations, is necessary to sustain progress. Successes in moderating the smoking-related burden by reducing risk exposure highlight the need to advance policies that reduce exposure to other leading risk factors such as ambient particulate matter air pollution and high SBP. Troubling increases in high FPG, high BMI, and other risk factors related to obesity and metabolic syndrome indicate an urgent need to identify and implement interventions

Randomized controlled trial comparing propofol and fentanyl versus midazolam and fentanyl for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Introdução: o uso da sedação na rotina endoscópica tem sido empregado praticamente de maneira universal. O emprego de propofol parece se relacionar a exame mais confortável, com aumento da satisfação com o exame, pelo médico e pelo paciente. Entretanto, o uso do propofol está associado ao maior risco de sedação profunda e às complicações a ela associadas. Objetivo: comparar dois esquemas de sedação para a realização de endoscopia digestiva alta diagnóstica, grupo midazolam (midazolam e fentanil) com o grupo propofol (propofol e fentanil) quanto ao nível de sedação profunda e, como desfechos secundários, o grau de satisfação, o tempo de recuperação e a frequência de complicações entre os grupos. Método: foi realizado estudo experimental, prospectivo, randômico, cego com 200 pacientes, 100 no grupo midazolam e 100 no grupo propofol. Resultado: utilizando a escala OAA/S e o índice bispectral (BIS), respectivamente 11% e 7% dos pacientes do grupo midazolam e 25% e 19 % do grupo propofol apresentaram níveis de sedação profunda, sendo significativamente mais frequente neste último grupo. Houve boa correlação do nível de sedação da escala clínica OAA/S com o índice bispectral (BIS) para os dois grupos (k=0,63 para o grupo midazolam e k=0,71 para o grupo propofol). Quarenta e dois por cento dos pacientes do grupo propofol e 26% dos pacientes do grupo midazolam precisaram de oferta suplementar de oxigênio (p=0,025). O tempo médio de recuperação dos pacientes do grupo midazolam foi de 44,13 min e do grupo propofol foi de 28,82 min (p<0,001). O grau de satisfação dos pacientes foi semelhante entre os grupos e os médicos deram preferência ao uso da associação propofol/fentanil. Não se observaram complicações graves decorrentes da sedação em ambos os grupos. Conclusão: ambos os esquemas de sedação levam à sedação profunda. O grupo propofol utilizando o propofol e fentanil apresentou eventos de sedação profunda mais frequentemente. Por outro lado, os dois esquemas são seguros. Os pacientes do grupo propofol apresentaram tempo de indução da sedação, de recuperação e de liberação menoresIntroduction: the use of sedation is almost universal for the practice of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. The use of propofol seems to be associated with higher physician and patient satisfaction. However there is a higher risk of deep sedation and its related complication when propofol is used. Objective: compare the frequency of deep sedation events with two drug associations for the sedation in upper GI endoscopy. The OAA/S score and the bispectral index monitoring (BIS) were employed for the assessment of consciousness level. Secondarily we compared patient and physician satisfaction, recovery time and the complication rates between the two groups. Methods: two hundred patients sent for upper GI endoscopy were randomized in two groups: midazolam and propofol, each of them with 100 patients. Results: Deep sedation events occurred in 11% (OAA/S score) and 7% (BIS) in group midazolam and significantly more frequent in group propofol (25%- OAA/S score and 19% - BIS). There was a good agreement between the OAA/S score and the bispectral index (BIS) in both groups (k=0.63 and K=0.71 for groups midazolam and propofol, respectively). Forty two per cent of group propofol patients and 26% of group midazolam patients needed oxygen supplementation (p=0.025). The mean recovery time for groups midazolam and propofol patients were 44.13 min and 28.82 min, respectively (p<0.001). While patients were equally satisfied with both drug associations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol/fentanyl association. We did not record any severe complications related with sedation. Conclusion: both drug associations are associated with deep sedation events. The propofol/fentanyl association causes deep sedation events more frequently when compared with midazolam/fentanyl association. Both associations are safe. The induction sedation, recovery and discharge times were shorter with propofol/fentanyl associatio

Técnica modificada para realização da gastro-jejunostomia endoscópica percutânea

RESUMO A realização da gastro-jejunostomia endoscópica percutânea (PEG-J) proporciona nutrição além do ângulo de Treitz, e está associada à diminuição das complicações relacionadas à gastroparesia, como a pneumonia por aspiração. Existem diversas técnicas para realização da PEG-J descritas na literatura, com graus variáveis de sucesso técnico. Neste artigo propomos modificações na técnica de realização da PEG-J, a fim de reduzir o tempo do procedimento e minimizar o risco de insucesso