Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Dis Esophagus ; 32(9)2019 Nov 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31037293

RESUMEN

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) uses optical coherence tomography (OCT) for real-time, microscopic cross-sectional imaging. A US-based multi-center registry was constructed to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing upper endoscopy during which a VLE scan was performed. The objective of this registry was to determine usage patterns of VLE in clinical practice and to estimate quantitative and qualitative performance metrics as they are applied to Barrett's esophagus (BE) management. All procedures utilized the NvisionVLE Imaging System (NinePoint Medical, Bedford, MA) which was used by investigators to identify the tissue types present, along with focal areas of concern. Following the VLE procedure, investigators were asked to answer six key questions regarding how VLE impacted each case. Statistical analyses including neoplasia diagnostic yield improvement using VLE was performed. One thousand patients were enrolled across 18 US trial sites from August 2014 through April 2016. In patients with previously diagnosed or suspected BE (894/1000), investigators used VLE and identified areas of concern not seen on white light endoscopy (WLE) in 59% of the procedures. VLE imaging also guided tissue acquisition and treatment in 71% and 54% of procedures, respectively. VLE as an adjunct modality improved the neoplasia diagnostic yield by 55% beyond the standard of care practice. In patients with no prior history of therapy, and without visual findings from other technologies, VLE-guided tissue acquisition increased neoplasia detection over random biopsies by 700%. Registry investigators reported that VLE improved the BE management process when used as an adjunct tissue acquisition and treatment guidance tool. The ability of VLE to image large segments of the esophagus with microscopic cross-sectional detail may provide additional benefits including higher yield biopsies and more efficient tissue acquisition. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02215291.


Asunto(s)
Esófago de Barrett/diagnóstico por imagen , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Tomografía de Coherencia Óptica/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Esófago de Barrett/patología , Esófago de Barrett/terapia , Biopsia , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Sistemas de Computación , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Sistema de Registros , Tomografía de Coherencia Óptica/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos
2.
Dig Dis Sci ; 64(9): 2631-2637, 2019 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31041643

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Jaundice is a common initial presentation of malignant biliary stricture. In patients with life expectancies that are greater than 3 months, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) offer a larger diameter stent with longer patency and fewer complications compared to plastic stents. There have been conflicting results in the published literature as to efficacy and safety between the various SEMS types and diameters. We compared stent coating (PCSEMS vs USEMS) and diameter on clinical outcomes regarding management of malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a database of consecutive patients who underwent an ERCP with biliary SEMS placement (only 8 and 10 mm) between 2009 and 2017. RESULTS: In total, 278 patients who had SEMS at ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction were included (213 PCSEMS vs 65 USEMS). The groups were demographically evenly matched. Clinical success rates and patency duration were not statistically significant between PCSEMS and USEMS (98.1% vs 95.5%, P = 0.36, and 302.5 vs 225.5 days, P = 0.72, respectively). Adverse event rates were similar between both PCSEMS and USEMS with regard to overall adverse events. Stent diameter did not have an impact on overall clinical success (98.9% vs 95.3%, P = 0.11) or patency duration (239 days vs 336 days, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparison of PCSEMS versus USEMS and 8 mm versus 10 mm showed no difference in clinical efficacy or adverse events between the two SEMS coatings and diameter, illustrating that coating and size do not matter in regard to stent choice, despite prior suggestive data.


Asunto(s)
Colestasis/diagnóstico , Colestasis/cirugía , Stents Metálicos Autoexpandibles/tendencias , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Bases de Datos Factuales/tendencias , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Falla de Prótesis/tendencias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Stents Metálicos Autoexpandibles/normas , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA