RESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few prospective studies have assessed the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in elective endoscopy. Our primary aim was to compare the risks of endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients on DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this setting. Secondarily, we examined the impact of the timing of anticoagulant resumption on the risk of delayed bleeding in high-risk therapeutic procedures. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study from January 2018 to March 2020 of 1602 patients on oral anticoagulants (1004 on VKAs and 598 on DOACs) undergoing 1874 elective endoscopic procedures. Our primary outcomes were 90-day thromboembolic events and 30-day endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used for baseline covariate adjustment. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar risks of endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding (VKAs vs DOACs, 6.2% vs 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.67-1.65) and thromboembolic events (VKAs vs DOACs, 1.3% vs 1.5%; adjusted OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.34-2.38). In high bleeding risk procedures (n = 747), delayed anticoagulant resumption (> 48 hours or 24-48 hours vs < 24 hours) did not reduce the risk of postprocedural bleeding (10.3%, 9%, and 5.8%, respectively; adjusted P = .43). Hot and cold snare polypectomy were the most frequent high-risk interventions (41.8% and 39.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In a prospective study of patients on DOACs or VKAs undergoing elective endoscopy, endoscopy-related bleeding and thromboembolic events showed similar risk. Our study suggests that early anticoagulant resumption is safe in most patients, but more data are needed for advanced high-risk therapeutic procedures.
Asunto(s)
Pólipos del Colon , Administración Oral , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Colonoscopía , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/inducido químicamente , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/epidemiología , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Vitamina KRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Gastric outlet obstruction is a complication of advanced tumors. It causes upper gastrointestinal obstruction, with progressive malnutrition and reduced survival. Currently, gastrojejunostomy or stent placement (SP) are feasible alternatives for the treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and survival of both techniques. METHODS: Single-center observational and prospective study of 58 patients with gastric outlet obstruction who underwent surgical treatment with stomach-partitioning gastrojejunostomy (SPGJ) or SP with self-expanding intraluminal prostheses between 2007 and 2018. RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent SPGJ and 28 SP. The mean age of the first group was significantly lower (69 vs. 78 years, respectively; P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of sex, perioperative risk or tumor etiology. Postoperative complications were non-significantly higher in the SPGJ group (P=.156). SP was associated with a shorter hospital stay (P=.02) and faster oral intake (P<.0001). However, SP had significantly higher rates of persistent and recurrent obstruction (P=.048 and .01, respectively), poorer energy targets (P=.009) and shorter survival (9.61 vs. 4.47 months; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: SPGJ presents greater luminal permeability, better oral intake and greater survival than SP. SP is preferable for non-surgical patients with a limited short-term prognosis.