Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 33(12): 1559-1569.e2, 2022 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36084842

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) in the treatment of hepatic metastases from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the Embase and MEDLINE databases was conducted using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms related to TARE and hepatic metastases from PDAC. Observational studies and clinical trials reporting overall survival (OS), hepatic progression-free survival (hPFS), or tumor response after TARE were included. RESULTS: Eight studies, comprising 145 patients with metastatic PDAC, met the inclusion criteria. No randomized controlled trials were identified, and 4 studies were prospective. Forty-four (30.3%) patients underwent previous pancreatic resection, and 66 (45.5%) had extrahepatic metastases at the time of TARE. Most studies (n = 6) used resin microspheres for TARE. The pooled disease control rate was 69.4% at a median of 3 months. The median OS from the time of TARE ranged from 3.7 to 9 months. The median hPFS ranged from 2.4 to 5.2 months. There were 31 Grade 3-4 biochemical toxicities and 4 treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The role of TARE in patients with hepatic metastases from PDAC remains unclear owing to low patient numbers, limited prospective data, and heterogeneity in the study design. Further prospective studies are required to evaluate the role of TARE in carefully selected patients with liver-only metastatic disease.


Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático , Embolización Terapéutica , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Radioisótopos de Itrio/efectos adversos , Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Neoplasias Hepáticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Hepáticas/radioterapia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patología , Embolización Terapéutica/efectos adversos , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/terapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas
2.
Ann Vasc Surg ; 77: 306-314, 2021 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34437976

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an established treatment for many patients with infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Reporting standards were published in 2002 to ensure consistent measurement and reporting of outcomes following EVAR. We aimed to assess the range of clinical outcomes reported after EVAR and whether recent studies adhere to established reporting standards. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 2014 until December 2018, using terms for 'EVAR' and 'AAA'. We included prospective studies and randomised controlled trials which reported clinical outcomes of elective infra-renal AAA repair. Data on clinical outcome reporting were extracted and compared with established reporting standards. RESULTS: 84 studies were included. Technical success was reported in 49 (58.3%) studies, but only defined in 40 (47.6%), with 22 distinct definitions. Clinical success was reported and defined in 19 (22.6%) studies. Aneurysm rupture was reported in 27 (32.1%) studies and death from rupture in 11 (13.1%) studies. All-cause and aneurysm-related mortality were reported in 72 (85.7%) and 52 (61.9%) studies, respectively. Endoleak type I (n = 61, 72.6%) and II (n = 52, 61.9%) were more commonly reported than type III (n = 45, 53.6%) or IV (n = 13, 15.5%). Complications and mortality were reported by a mean of 18 (21.4%) and 42 (50%) studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of clinical outcomes were reported following EVAR. Few studies adhered to reporting guidelines. We recommend modification of reporting standards to reflect advances in endovascular technology and creation of a core outcome set for EVAR.


Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Reportes Públicos de Datos en Atención de Salud , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma de la Aorta Abdominal/mortalidad , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/mortalidad , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/normas , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Endovasculares/mortalidad , Procedimientos Endovasculares/normas , Adhesión a Directriz , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/mortalidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/terapia , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento
3.
Br J Radiol ; 94(1121): 20200980, 2021 May 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33684307

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Safety checklists have improved safety in patients undergoing surgery. Checklists have been designed specifically for use in image-guided interventions. This systematic review aimed to identify checklists designed for use in radiological interventions and to evaluate their efficacy for improving patient safety. Secondary aims were to evaluate attitudes toward checklists and barriers to their use. METHODS: OVID, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched using terms for "interventional radiology" and "checklist". Studies were included if they described pre-procedural checklist use in vascular/body interventional radiology (IR), paediatric IR or interventional neuro-radiology (INR). Data on checklist design, implementation and outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. Most studies (n = 14, 87.5%) focused on body IR. Two studies (12.5%) measured perioperative outcome after checklist implementation, but both had important limitations. Checklist use varied between 54 and 100% and completion of items on the checklists varied between 28 and 100%. Several barriers to checklist use were identified, including a lack of leadership and education and cultural challenges unique to radiology. CONCLUSIONS: We found few reports of the use of checklists in image-guided interventions. Approaches to checklist implementation varied, and several barriers to their use were identified. Evaluation has been limited. There seems to be considerable potential to improve the effective use of checklists in radiological procedures. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: There are few reports of the use of checklists in radiological interventions, those identified reported significant barriers to the effective use of checklists.


Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Lista de Verificación , Seguridad del Paciente , Radiología Intervencionista , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Humanos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud
4.
Surg Endosc ; 33(7): 2061-2071, 2019 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30937619

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs.


Asunto(s)
Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/métodos , Enfermedades de la Vesícula Biliar/cirugía , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Dolor Postoperatorio/diagnóstico , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Humanos
5.
HPB (Oxford) ; 20(9): 786-794, 2018 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29650299

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Consistent measurement and reporting of outcomes, including adequately defined complications, is important for the evaluation of surgical care and the appraisal of new surgical techniques. The range of complications reported after LC has not been evaluated. This study aimed to identify the range of complications currently reported for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), and the adequacy of their definitions. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of LC, between 2013 and 2016. RESULTS: In total 233 studies were included, reporting 967 complications, of which 204 (21%) were defined. One hundred and twenty-two studies (52%) did not provide definitions for any of the complications reported. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was the most commonly reported complication, reported in 135 (58%) studies, followed by bile leak in 89 (38%) and bile duct injury in 75 (32%). Mortality was reported in 89 studies (38%). CONCLUSION: Considerable variation was identified between studies in the choice of measures used to evaluate the complications of LC, and in their definitions. A standardised set of core outcomes of LC should be developed for use in clinical trials and in evaluating the performance of surgical units.


Asunto(s)
Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Conductos Biliares/lesiones , Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/mortalidad , Conversión a Cirugía Abierta , Humanos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/mortalidad , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Heridas y Lesiones/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA