EUS-Guided Intragastric Injection of Botulinum Toxin A in the Preoperative Treatment of Super-Obese Patients: a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a disease that is highly prevalent in Brazil, and the associated comorbidities represent a major global public health challenge. Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is a potent neurotoxin and inhibitor of gastric smooth muscle activity. In theory, BTX-A administration should promote early satiety and weight loss because it delays gastric emptying by inhibiting acetylcholine-mediated peristalsis, which is primarily responsible for gastric motility. Because results in the literature are discrepant, the efficacy of intragastric injections of BTX-A as a primary treatment for obesity remains unknown. The objective of this prospective, double-blind, single-center randomized study was to evaluate the effects of endoscopic ultrasound-guided intragastric BTX-A injections, as a bridge to bariatric surgery, in super-obese patients. METHODS: Thirty-two super-obese patients were randomized to one of two groups: BTX-A, in which 200 units of BTX-A were injected into the gastric antrum and body; and control, in which the same injections were performed with 0.9% saline. Weight, body mass index (BMI), and loss of excess weight were measured monthly over a 6-month period. Gastric emptying scintigraphy was performed before and after the procedure. RESULTS: The patients in both groups showed significant weight loss over the course of the study (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding weight loss, excess weight, total loss of excess weight, total weight loss, or change in BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Intragastric injection of BTX-A does not appear to be an effective method of achieving preoperative weight loss in super-obese patients.

SURGERY VERSUS ENDOSCOPIC THERAPIES FOR EARLY CANCER AND HIGH-GRADE DYSPLASIA IN THE ESOPHAGUS: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer occurs as a local disease in 22% of cases, and a minority of this disease is limited to the mucosa or submucosa (early lesions). Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, and argon plasma coagulation have emerged as alternatives to surgical resection for early lesions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to identify studies that statistically compare survival, disease-free survival, morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure, and mortality associated with cancer in the endoscopic versus surgical therapies. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review using MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, EBSCO, LILACS, Library University of Sao Paulo, BVS, and SCOPE. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, clinical trial, and cohort study. CRITERIA: - Studies that statistically compare survival, disease-free survival, morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure, and mortality associated with cancer in patients who underwent endoscopic and surgical therapy for early lesions of esophageal cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent extraction of the articles by two authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. LIMITATION: Only retrosprospective cohort studies comparing the endoscopic and surgical therapies were recovered. RESULTS: The survival rates after 3 and 5 years were different and exhibited superiority with the surgical therapies over time. Endoscopy is superior in the control of mortality related to cancer with a high rate of disease recurrence. With regard to the comorbidity and the mortality associated with the procedure, endoscopy is superior. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from clinical trials. In this systematic review, surgical therapies showed superiority for survival, and endoscopic therapies showed superiority in the control of mortality related to cancer with a high rate of disease recurrence; also, for the comorbidity and the mortality associated with the procedure, endoscopy is superior. Prospective, controlled trials with large sample sizes are necessary to confirm the results of the current analysis.

Surgery versus endoscopic therapies for early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in the esophagus: a systematic review

ABSTRACT Background Esophageal cancer occurs as a local disease in 22% of cases, and a minority of this disease is limited to the mucosa or submucosa (early lesions). Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, and argon plasma coagulation have emerged as alternatives to surgical resection for early lesions. Objective The aim of this systematic review is to identify studies that statistically compare survival, disease-free survival, morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure, and mortality associated with cancer in the endoscopic versus surgical therapies. Data sources A systematic review using MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, EBSCO, LILACS, Library University of Sao Paulo, BVS, and SCOPE. Study selection Randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, clinical trial, and cohort study. Criteria - Studies that statistically compare survival, disease-free survival, morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure, and mortality associated with cancer in patients who underwent endoscopic and surgical therapy for early lesions of esophageal cancer. Data extraction Independent extraction of the articles by two authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. Limitation Only retrosprospective cohort studies comparing the endoscopic and surgical therapies were recovered. Results The survival rates after 3 and 5 years were different and exhibited superiority with the surgical therapies over time. Endoscopy is superior in the control of mortality related to cancer with a high rate of disease recurrence. With regard to the comorbidity and the mortality associated with the procedure, endoscopy is superior. Conclusion There is no evidence from clinical trials. In this systematic review, surgical therapies showed superiority for survival, and endoscopic therapies showed superiority in the control of mortality related to cancer with a high rate of disease recurrence; also, for the comorbidity and the mortality associated with the procedure, endoscopy is superior. Prospective, controlled trials with large sample sizes are necessary to confirm the results of the current analysis.

RESUMO Contexto Cerca de 22% dos casos de câncer esofágico ocorrem como uma doença local e uma minoria é considerada lesão precoce, isto é, está limitada à mucosa ou submucosa. A ressecção endoscópica da mucosa, dissecção endoscópica da submucosa, a terapia fotodinâmica, a terapia laser e coagulação com plasma de argônio se desenvolveram como alternativas à ressecção cirúrgica para lesões precoces. Objetivo O objetivo desta revisão sistemática é identificar estudos que comparam terapia endoscópica com terapia cirúrgica, quanto à sobrevivência, à sobrevivência livre de doença, à morbidade e a mortalidade associada ao procedimento e a mortalidade associada ao câncer. Fontes de dados - Revisão sistemática utilizando MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, EBSCO, LILACS, Biblioteca da Universidade de São Paulo, BVS e ESCOPE. Seleção de estudo Estudo randomizado controlado, ensaio clínico e estudo de coorte. Critérios Estudos que comparam a sobrevivência, a sobrevivência livre de doença, a morbidade e a mortalidade associadas ao procedimento e mortalidade associada ao câncer na endoscópica e terapia cirúrgica para lesões precoces de câncer de esôfago. Extração de dados Extração independente de artigos com dois autores usando campos de dados pré-definidos, incluindo indicadores de qualidade do estudo. Limitação Somente estudos de coorte retrospectivos comparando endoscopia e a cirurgia foram recuperados. Resultados As taxas de sobrevida após 3 e 5 anos foram diferentes e mostrou-se superioridade das terapias cirúrgicas em relação às endoscópicas ao longo do tempo. A endoscopia é superior no controle da mortalidade relacionada ao câncer com alta taxa de recorrência da doença. Em relação à morbidade e mortalidade associadas ao procedimento, a endoscopia é superior. Conclusão Não há evidências de ensaios clínicos. Esta revisão sistemática mostrou superioridade na sobrevivência das terapias cirúrgicas. As terapias endoscópicas evidenciam superioridade no controle da mortalidade relacionada ao câncer com uma alta taxa de recorrência da doença. Além disso, a endoscopia correlaciona-se com menor morbidade e mortalidade associadas à intervenção. Ensaios controlados com grandes amostras são necessários para confirmar os resultados da análise atual.

Endoscopic-ultrasound versus percutaneous-guided celiac plexus block for chronic pancreatitis pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is present in the vast majority of patients with chronic pancreatitis, being frequently debilitating. Celiac plexus block (CPB) is an interventional technique that can be considered to provide a temporary pain relief. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness and safeness of endoscopic-ultrasound (EUS) comparing with percutaneous-guided CBP in patients with pancreatic pain. METHODS: A systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and COCHRANE (via BVS). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Only randomized control trials (RCT) comparing the beneficial and harmful effects of EUS and percutaneous-guided celiac plexus block for managing pancreatic pain were included. Data was extracted and analyzed on variables including pain relief and related procedure complications. RESULTS: Two RCT met the inclusion criteria. Both studies assessed the primary outcome (reduction on pain score) and evaluated adverse effects. The drugs injected were the same; nevertheless percutaneous technique was guided by fluoroscopy in one study and by computer tomography (CT) in other. The results showed that the EUS-CPB group was more effective to reduce pain score after 4 weeks after the procedure, with risk of bias to do this affirmation. No statistical difference in pain relief at 1, 8 and 12 weeks and in complications rates. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, no statistically significant difference was noted in pain relief and complications for EUS and percutaneous - CPB.