Surgical Management of Malignant Gastric Tumours: A Practical Guide

Gastric cancer is one of the most common gastrointestinal malignancies, known also for its dismal prognosis, except early cases. Despite the advances in systemic therapy, surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment. The majority of gastric cancers are carcinomas, while neuroendocrine tumours and gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) rank next by frequency. Tumour biology, disease course and prognosis differ amongst the aforementioned gastric cancers; thus, surgical treatment has to be adjusted as well. Accumulation of evidence ensures an individualised approach in all aspects of surgical treatment. Specific criteria are set to choose the best surgical treatment while maintaining postoperative function and acceptable life quality. Minimally invasive techniques continue to gain acceptance, while usage is still highly variable. Endoscopic resection is suitable for very early adenocarcinomas, whereas more advanced tumours require standard gastrectomy. Despite the initial concerns, subtotal gastrectomy (SG) is feasible and safe, especially for distal adenocarcinomas. In recent years, D2 lymphadenectomies have become more frequent in Western countries, and evidence supports this tendency. Surgery for gastric neuroendocrine tumours is type-specific and will be discussed in detail. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours are treated by local resection without wide margins or extensive lymph node dissection. Novel targeted therapy can aid surgical treatment by downstaging larger GISTs

Uso da mistura gasosa de hélio e oxigênio (Heliox®) no tratamento da doença respiratória obstrutiva da via aérea inferior em serviço de emergência pediátrica

OBJETIVO: Determinar se a utilização de salbutamol, em uma mistura de hélio-oxigênio (80:20), modifica a evolução e o risco de internação em pacientes pediátricos. MÉTODOS: Delineado estudo de coorte controlada que incluiu pacientes de 2 meses a 12 anos de idade, com diagnósticos de crise de asma ou bronquiolite viral. Intensidades caracterizadas de moderada a grave, aferidas através de escore clínico (pulmonary index, PI) para doença obstrutiva. Foram considerados elegíveis escores > 8. Vinte pacientes constituíram o grupo Heliox® e 40 o grupo Oxigênio. Os pacientes receberam sequencialmente, em intervalos de 20 min, até completar seis nebulizações (período de 2 h): salbutamol 0,15 mg/kg/dose (máximo 5 mg). A droga utilizou como veículo gerador do aerossol a mistura de Heliox® (80:20) ou oxigênio a 100%. Os pacientes com diagnóstico de crise aguda de asma receberam, adicionalmente, prednisolona (2 mg/kg) via oral. RESULTADOS: Onze pacientes do grupo Heliox® permaneceram necessitando de tratamento na 6ª h de atendimento, enquanto que no grupo que recebia nebulização veiculada em oxigênio, esse número foi de 38 (p = 0,034). Na 12ª h, 7 pacientes do grupo Heliox® permaneciam em observação, enquanto no grupo Oxigênio foram 27 (p = 0,02). Diferenças quanto à necessidade de suplementação de oxigênio foram observadas apenas na 6ª h de tratamento (p = 0,02). CONCLUSÕES: Heliox® (80:20), para administração de salbutamol, é efetivo no tratamento da doença obstrutiva infantil que apresente resposta à terapêutica broncodilatadora. Comparado à técnica usual de nebulização, está associado à menor permanência em sala de observação após 6 h de tratamento

Use of cardiac imaging in chronic coronary syndromes: the EURECA Imaging registry

BACKGROUND The prospective, multicentre EURECA registry assessed the use of imaging and adoption of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines (GL) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). METHODS Between May 2019 and March 2020, 5156 patients were recruited in 73 centres from 24 ESC member countries. The adoption of GL recommendations was evaluated according to clinical presentation and pre-test probability (PTP) of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS The mean age of the population was 64 ± 11 years, 60% of patients were males, 42% had PTP >15%, 27% had previous CAD, and ejection fraction was <50% in 5%. Exercise ECG was performed in 32% of patients, stress imaging as the first choice in 40%, and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in 22%. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was the first or downstream test in 17% and 11%, respectively. Obstructive CAD was documented in 24% of patients, inducible ischaemia in 19%, and 13% of patients underwent revascularization. In 44% of patients, the overall diagnostic process did not adopt the GL. In these patients, referral to stress imaging (21% vs. 58%; P < 0.001) or CTCA (17% vs. 30%; P < 0.001) was less frequent, while exercise ECG (43% vs. 22%; P < 0.001) and ICA (48% vs. 15%; P < 0.001) were more frequently performed. The adoption of GL was associated with fewer ICA, higher proportion of diagnosis of obstructive CAD (60% vs. 39%, P < 0.001) and revascularization (54% vs. 37%, P < 0.001), higher quality of life, fewer additional testing, and longer times to late revascularization. CONCLUSIONS In patients with CCS, current clinical practice does not adopt GL recommendations on the use of diagnostic tests in a significant proportion of patients. When the diagnostic approach adopts GL recommendations, invasive procedures are less frequently used and the diagnostic yield and therapeutic utility are superior

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used