Gastrointestinal manifestations and associated health outcomes of COVID-19: a brazilian experience from the largest south american public hospital

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported ≥1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p<0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p<0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p>0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.

Segurança e eficácia do uso de cianoacrilato + coil guiado por ultrassom endoscópico versus técnica convencional de cianoacrilato no tratamento de varizes gástricas: um ensaio clínico randomizado / Safety and efficacy of eus-guided coil plus cyanoacrylate versus conventional cyanoacrylate technique in the treatment of gastric varices: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: One of the most feared complications with the use of cyanoacrylate for treatment of gastric varices is the occurrence of potentially life-threatening systemic embolism. Thus, endoscopists are turning towards new techniques, including endoscopic coiling, as a potentially safer and more effective treatment option. However, no studies have been performed comparing the two techniques. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided coil and cyanoacrylate injection versus the conventional technique of injection of cyanoacrylate alone. DESIGN: A pilot randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients randomized into group I were treated with coil and cyanoacrylate, and those in group II with cyanoacrylate alone. Flow within the varix was evaluated immediately after the treatment session and one month following initial treatment. If thrombosis was confirmed, additional follow-up was performed 4 and 10 months following initial treatment. All patients underwent a thoracic computerized tomography scan after the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients, 16 in each group, were followed for an average of 9.9 months (range 1-26 months). Immediately after the procedure, 6 (37.5%) group-I patients and 8 (50%) group-II patients presented total flow reduction in the treated vessel (P=0.476). After 30 days, 11 (73.3%) group-I patients and 12 (75%) group-II patients were found to have varix thrombosis. In both groups, the majority of patients required only one single session for varix obliteration (73.3% in group I versus 80% in group II). Asymptomatic pulmonary embolism occurred in 4 (25%) group-I patients and 8 (50%) group-II patients (P=0.144). No significant difference between the groups was observed. CONCLUSION: There is no statistical difference between endoscopic ultrasound guided coils plus cyanoacrylate versus conventional cyanoacrylate technique in relation to the incidence of embolism. However, a greater tendency towards embolism was observed in the group treated using the conventional technique. Both techniques have similar efficacy in the obliteration of varices. Given the small sample size of our pilot data, our results are insufficient to prove the clinical benefit of the combined technique, and do not yet justify its use, especially in light of higher cost. Further studies with larger sample size are warranted.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Uma das complicações mais temidas com o uso de cianoacrilato para tratamento de varizes gástricas é a ocorrência de embolia sistêmica potencialmente fatal. Assim, os endoscopistas estão se aprimorando com novas técnicas, incluindo o uso de coils endoscópico, como uma opção de tratamento potencialmente mais segura e eficaz. No entanto, nenhum estudo foi realizado comparando as duas técnicas. OBJETIVO: Este estudo tem como objetivo comparar a segurança e eficácia da injeção de coil com cianoacrilato guiados por ultrassom endoscópico versus a técnica convencional de injeção de cianoacrilato. DESIGN: Um ensaio piloto controlado aleatoriamente. MÉTODOS: Os pacientes randomizados para o grupo I foram tratados com coil + cianoacrilato e os do grupo II apenas com cianoacrilato. O fluxo dentro da variz foi avaliado imediatamente após a sessão de tratamento e um mês após o tratamento inicial. Se a trombose foi confirmada, o acompanhamento adicional era realizado em 4 e 10 meses após o tratamento inicial. Todos os pacientes foram submetidos a uma tomografia computadorizada torácica após o procedimento. RESULTADOS: Um total de 32 pacientes, 16 em cada grupo, foram acompanhados por uma média de 9,9 meses (variação de 1-26 meses). Imediatamente após o procedimento, 6 (37,5%) pacientes do grupo I e 8 (50%) pacientes do grupo II apresentaram redução total do fluxo no vaso tratado (P=0,476). Após 30 dias, 11 (73,3%) pacientes do grupo I e 12 (75%) pacientes do grupo II apresentaram trombose da variz. Em ambos os grupos, a maioria dos pacientes necessitou de apenas uma única sessão para obliteração da variz (73,3% no grupo I versus 80% no grupo II). Embolia pulmonar assintomática ocorreu em 4 (25%) pacientes do grupo I e em 8 (50%) pacientes no grupo II (P=0,144). Nenhuma diferença significativa entre os grupos foi observada. CONCLUSÃO Apesar de não haver diferença estatística entre os dois grupos em relação à incidência de embolia neste estudo piloto, observou-se maior tendência de embolia no grupo tratado pela técnica convencional.

A eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos versus métodos sham, farmacológicos ou cirúrgicos para o refluxo gastroesofágico crônico: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise / The efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments versus sham, pharmacologic or surgical methods for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Endoscopic antireflux treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are still evolving, and most of the published studies address symptom relief in the short-term. Objective - We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on evaluating the efficacy of the different endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO, and EMBASE for patients with chronic GERD (>6 months), over 18 years old and available follow up of at least 3 months. The main outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments compared to sham, pharmacological or surgical treatment. Efficacy was measured by different subjective and objective outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 16 RCT, totaling 1085 patients. The efficacy of endoscopic treatments compared to sham and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment showed a significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy with no heterogeneity (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy: endoscopy vs PPI (P<0.00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopy vs sham (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). Most subjective and objective outcomes were statistically significant in favor of endoscopy up to 6 and 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows a good short-term efficacy in favor of endoscopic procedures when comparing them to a sham and pharmacological or surgical treatment. Data on long-term follow up is lacking and this should be explored in future studies.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Os tratamentos endoscópicos para a doença do refluxo gastroesofágico (DRGE) ainda estão em evolução e a maioria dos estudos publicados abordam o alívio dos sintomas em curto prazo. OBJETIVO: Pretendemos realizar uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise focada na avaliação da eficácia dos diferentes procedimentos endoscópicos. MÉTODOS: A pesquisa foi restrita a ensaios clínicos randomizados em MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO e EMBASE para pacientes com DRGE crônica (>6 meses), com mais de 18 anos e acompanhamento disponível por pelo menos 3 meses. O principal desfecho foi avaliar a eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. A eficácia foi medida por diferentes resultados subjetivos e objetivos. RESULTADOS: Analisamos dados de 16 ensaios clínicos randomizados, totalizando 1085 pacientes. A eficácia dos tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento com sham e inibidores da bomba de prótons mostrou uma diferença significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia sem heterogeneidade (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A análise do subgrupo mostrou diferença estatisticamente significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia: endoscopia vs inibidores da bomba de prótons (P<0,00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopia vs sham (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A maioria dos resultados subjetivos e objetivos foram estatisticamente significativos em favor da endoscopia até 6 e 12 meses de acompanhamento. CONCLUSÃO: Esta revisão sistemática e meta-análise mostrou uma boa eficácia a curto prazo em favor dos procedimentos endoscópicos ao compará-los a tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. Não existem dados sobre o acompanhamento a longo prazo e isso deve ser explorado em estudos futuros.