RESUMEN
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related death in men and the second cause in women worldwide. We describe a case of a 51- year old lady with small cell lung cancer who developed small bowel obstruction following chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide. Abdominal CT scan showed changes confined to the jejunum and proximal ileum with diffuse mural thickening and hyper-attenuation of the mucosa with sparing of the terminal ileum, caecum and colon. Her condition improved with conservative management and intravenous antibiotics.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos , Obstrucción Intestinal , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Tratamiento Conservador , Femenino , Humanos , Obstrucción Intestinal/diagnóstico por imagen , Obstrucción Intestinal/etiología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/complicaciones , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction commonly have multi-vessel coronary artery disease. After the culprit artery is treated, the optimal treatment strategy for the residual disease is not yet defined. Large observational studies suggest that treatment of residual disease should be deferred but smaller randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest multi-vessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PPCI) at the time of STEMI is safe. We examine if allocation bias of high-risk patients could explain the conflicting results between observational studies and RCTs and aim to resolve the paradox between the two. METHODS: A meta-analysis of registries comparing culprit-only PPCI to MV-PPCI was performed. We then determined if high-risk patients were more likely to be allocated to MV-PPCI. A meta-regression was performed to determine if any allocation bias of high-risk patients could explain the difference in outcomes between therapies. RESULTS: 47,717 patients (19 studies) were eligible. MV-PPCI had higher mortality than culprit-only PPCI (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.24, p=0.03). However, higher risk patients were more likely to be allocated to MV-PPCI (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.78, p=0.0005). When this was accounted for, there was no difference in mortality between culprit-only PPCI and MV-PPCI (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, p=0.94). DISCUSSION: Clinicians preferentially allocate higher-risk patients to MV-PPCI at the time of STEMI, resulting in observational studies reporting higher mortality with this strategy. When this is accounted for, these large observational studies in 'real world' patients support the conclusion of the smaller RCTs in the field: MV-PPCI has equivalent mortality to a culprit-only approach.