RESUMO
Inflammatory pseudotumor encompasses a spectrum of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions characterized by a histological pattern featuring a proliferation of cytologically bland spindle cells, accompanied by a prominent chronic inflammatory infiltrate. Within this spectrum, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT) has emerged as a distinct entity over the past two decades, marked by unique clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics. Typically affecting the visceral soft tissues of children and adolescents, IMT exhibits a propensity for local recurrence while posing a minimal risk of distant metastasis. They are extremely rare in adults, constituting less than 1% of adult lung tumors. Our patient, a 63-year-old female, has an intricate medical background, encompassing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a previous history of smoking (35 pack-years, quit a year before admission), coronary artery disease, non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and obstructive sleep apnea. Presenting with a diagnostic dilemma, she recently received treatment for non-small cell carcinoma with radiation therapy, which has evolved into a swiftly advancing case of IMT.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Systemic thrombolysis (ST) may not be ideal for many patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) due to bleeding risk. In this analysis, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) as an alternative to ST for acute PE. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent MT and/or ST for PE were identified from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2017. Patients who underwent catheter-directed thrombolysis were excluded. We compared in-hospital outcomes of both groups in this retrospective study. RESULTS: Of 16 890 patients who received an intervention for acute PE, 1380 (8.2%) received MT and 15 510 (91.8%) received ST. There was no difference in age between both groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received MT than that in those who received ST (11.9% vs 20.6%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.93, p=0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of periprocedural bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and acute kidney injury between the 2 groups (p≥0.608 for all). Patients who received MT had a higher rate of respiratory complications (19.0% vs 11.6%, OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.06-3.03, p=0.030) and discharge to an outside facility (34.1% vs 19.2%, OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.41-3.37, p<0.001) than those who received ST. CONCLUSION: Mortality was significantly lower with MT than that with ST, but larger randomized studies are needed to validate this. The use of MT should be individualized on the basis of the patients' clinical presentation, risk profile, and local resources. CLINICAL IMPACT: In this study, we utilized the National Inpatient Sample database to study the in-hospital outcomes of pulmonary embolism patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy compared to those who underwent systemic thrombolysis. We found that the patients who were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and underwent mechanical thrombectomy had significantly lower mortality compared to those who were treated using systemic thrombolysis. This study was the first of its kind, utilizing the national inpatient sample database for evaluation of mechanical thrombectomy in comparison with the standard of care. These result would direct further randomized controlled trials for better evaluation of the utilization of mechanical thrombectomy in the correct clinical context. Furthermore, our study demonstrated comparable peri-operative complications between the mechanical thrombectomy group and the systemic thrombolysis group. These results would direct clinicians to consider mechanical thrombectomy if clinically indicated given the promising results.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent data have shown an advantage of rhythm control over rate control for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, the data regarding efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with AF is lacking. Therefore, we sought to evaluate recurrence of arrhythmia, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, stroke/TIA, and all-cause readmissions of CA compared with AAD in patients with AF. METHODS: Systematically searched through PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane for randomized control trials that compared CA and AAD in atrial fibrillation patients. Review Manager 5.4 and OpenMetaAnalyst were used to analyze the data. Data was pooled for the outcomes using random-effect models (DerSimonian and Laird) and reported as pooled odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: A total of 4822 patients were included. The CA group had 2417 patients while the AAD group included 2405 patients. Pooled data demonstrated that the CA arm had a statistically significant decrease in risk for recurrence of arrhythmia as compared to AAD (OR 0.25; [95% CI, 0.18-0.36]; p < 0.001). All-cause readmission was statistically significantly lower in CA as compared to AAD (OR 0.33; [95%CI, 0.17-0.63]; p < 0.001). For other secondary outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between CA and AAD with regard to all-cause mortality (OR 0.75; [95% CI, 0.55-1.03]), cardiovascular death (OR 0.76; [95% CI, 0.22-2.54]), bleeding (OR 1.09, [95% CI 0.74, 1.61]), or stroke/TIA outcome (OR 0.90, [95% CI, 0.59-1.37]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of pooled data from 16 RCTs, CA utilization for atrial fibrillation had improved freedom from arrhythmia as well as reduced all-cause readmission compared with AAD.
