Endoscopic resection of esophageal and gastric submucosal tumors from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) are less-invasive therapeutic alternatives to surgical resection for the removal of esophageal or gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). This study aimed to comparing STER versus ESE for the resection of esophageal and gastric SMTs from the muscularis propria. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines through December 2020. Pooled outcome measures included complete resection, en bloc resection, bleeding, perforation, adverse events, recurrence, procedure duration, and length of hospital stay. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was calculated as well as Peto time-to-event analyses to determine recurrence rate. RESULTS: Five retrospective cohort studies (n = 269 STER versus n = 319 ESE) were included. There was no difference in rates of complete resection [RR: 1.01 (95% CI 0.94, 1.07)], en bloc resection [RR: 0.95 (95% CI 0.84, 1.08)], recurrence [OR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.33, 4.16)], and total adverse events [RR: 1.33 (95% CI 0.78, 2.27)]. Specific adverse events including rates of perforation [RR: 0.57 (95% CI 0.12, 2.74)] and bleeding [RR: 1.21 (95% CI 0.30, 4.88)] were not different between STER and ESE. There was a statistical difference when evaluating procedure time, with the STER group presenting significantly larger values [MD: 24.62 min (95% CI 20.04, 29.20)]. CONCLUSION: STER and ESE were associated with similar efficacy and safety; however, ESE was associated with a significantly decreased time to complete the procedure.

Comparison of baseline data between chronic kidney disease patients starting hemodialysis who live near and far from the dialysis center.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. OBJECTIVE: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. METHODS: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. RESULTS: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. CONCLUSION: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center.

Comparison of baseline data between chronic kidney disease patients starting hemodialysis who live near and far from the dialysis center / Comparação dos dados de base entre pacientes com doença renal crônica que iniciam hemodiálise que moram perto e longe da unidade de diálise

Introduction: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. Objective: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. Methods: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. Results: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. Conclusion: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center. .

Introdução: O tratamento da doença renal crônica (DRC) anterior ao início da hemodiálise (HD) tem impacto sobre o prognóstico. Objetivo: Comparar diferenças entre pacientes incidentes em HD de acordo com a distância entre moradia e a unidade de diálise. Métodos: Foram incluídos 179 pacientes com DRC em HD. Os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos: "residentes perto da unidade de diálise" (moradia até 100 km da unidade de diálise) e "residentes longe da unidade de diálise" (moradia a mais de 100 km da unidade de diálise). Nível socioeconômico, resultados laboratoriais, conhecimento sobre DRC antes de iniciar HD, consulta com nefrologista antes da primeira sessão de HD e tipo de acesso vascular ao iniciar HD foram comparados entre os dois grupos. As comparações entre variáveis contínuas e categóricas foram feitas pelos testes t de Student e qui-quadrado, respectivamente. Resultados: Noventa (50,3%) pacientes foram classificados como "morando perto" e 89 (49,7%) "morando longe". Havia mais pacientes morando perto da unidade de diálise com conhecimento sobre DRC do que os pacientes morando longe, respectivamente, 46,6% versus 28,0% (p = 0,015). Mesmo sem significado estatístico, havia mais pacientes morando perto da unidade de diálise que se consultaram previamente com nefrologista (55,5% versus 42,6%; p = 0,116) e que iniciaram HD por fístula (30,0% versus 191,1%; p = 0,128) do que os pacientes morando longe. Conclusão: Existem vantagens potenciais em relação ao conhecimento da DRC, encaminhamento ao nefrologista e início de HD por fístula entre os pacientes que moram perto da unidade de diálise. .