Barrett’s esophagus: Review of natural history and comparative efficacy of endoscopic and surgical therapies

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Progression to cancer typically occurs in a stepwise fashion through worsening dysplasia and ultimately, invasive neoplasia. Established EAC with deep involvement of the esophageal wall and/or metastatic disease is invariably associated with poor long-term survival rates. This guides the rationale of surveillance of Barrett’s in an attempt to treat lesions at an earlier, and potentially curative stage. The last two decades have seen a paradigm shift in management of Barrett’s with rapid expansion in the role of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for management of dysplastic and early neoplastic BE, and there have been substantial changes to international consensus guidelines for management of early BE based on evolving evidence. This review aims to assist the physician in the therapeutic decision-making process with patients by comprehensive review and summary of literature surrounding natural history of Barrett’s by histological stage, and the effectiveness of interventions in attenuating the risk posed by its natural history. Key findings were as follows. Non-dysplastic Barrett’s is associated with extremely low risk of progression, and interventions cannot be justified. The annual risk of cancer progression in low grade dysplasia is between 1%-3%; EET can be offered though evidence for its benefit remains confined to highly select settings. High-grade dysplasia progresses to cancer in 5%-10% per year; EET is similarly effective to and less morbid than surgery and should be routinely performed for this indication. Risk of nodal metastases in intramucosal cancer is 2%-4%, which is comparable to operative mortality rate, so EET is usually preferred. Submucosal cancer is associated with nodal metastases in 14%-41% hence surgery remains standard of care, except for select situations.     

Is amiodarone still a reasonable therapeutic option for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation?

Amiodarone is the most potent antiarrhythmic drug available and is commonly prescribed to treat and prevent not only life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias but also atrial fibrillation (AF). The latest European Society of Cardiology AF guidelines state that amiodarone is recommended for long-term rhythm control in all AF patients but that other antiarrhythmic drugs should be considered first whenever possible, due to its extracardiac toxicity. In patients without significant or with only minimal structural heart disease, amiodarone is not listed as a possibility in their therapeutic scheme. Still, amiodarone is widely and liberally used, and is the most prescribed antiarrhythmic drug for patients with AF despite its high toxicity profile. Non-cardiovascular death was more frequent with amiodarone treatment than with a rate control strategy in AFFIRM, while meta-analyses suggest an association between amiodarone use in patients without structural heart disease and increased non-cardiovascular mortality. Severe or even fatal outcomes due to amiodarone may occur years after treatment initiation and are often not acknowledged by the prescribing physician, who may no longer be following the patient. The lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria and symptom definitions may lead to underestimation of the incidence of severe side effects and of its toxicity. Unlike the underestimated risk of toxicity with amiodarone, severe complications associated with catheter ablation are usually directly ascribed to the treatment even by non-medical personnel, possibly resulting in overestimation of risks. This brief review will address the issue of amiodarone overuse and the frequent underestimation of its toxicity, while suggesting scenarios in which its use is entirely reasonable, and compare it with catheter ablation.     

The impact of additional margin coagulation with radiofrequency in liver resections with subcentimetric margin: can we improve the oncological results? A propensity score matching study

BackgroundWhereas the usefulness of radiofrequency (RF) energy as haemostatic method in liver surgery has become well established in the last decades, its intentional application on resection margins with the aim of reducing local recurrence is still debatable. Our goal was to compare the impact of an additional application of RF energy on the top of the resection surface, namely additional margin coagulation (AMC), on local recurrence (LR) when subjected to a subcentimeter margin.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 185 patients out of a whole cohort of 283 patients who underwent radical hepatic resection with subcentimetric margin. After propensity score adjustment, patients were classified into two balanced groups according to whether RF was applied or not.ResultsNo significant differences were observed within groups in baseline characteristics after PSM adjustment. The LR rate was significantly higher in the Control than AMC Group: 12 patients (14.5%) vs. 4 patients (4.8%) (p = 0.039). The estimated 1, 3, and 5-year LR-free survival rates of patients in the Control and AMC Group were: 93.5%, 86.0%, 81.0% and 98.8%, 97.2%, 91.9%, respectively (p = 0.049). Univariate Cox analyses indicated that the use of the RF applicator was significantly associated with lower LR (HR = 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.093–0.906, p = 0.033). The Control Group showed smaller coagulation widths than the AMC group (p < 0.001).ConclusionsAn additional application of RF on the top of the resection surface is associated with less local hepatic recurrence than the use of conventional techniques.     

免疫抑制儿童感染新型冠状病毒Omicron变异株病毒清除时间的回顾性队列研究

背景：儿童新型冠状（新冠）病毒Omicron变异株流行期间，免疫抑制状态儿童新冠病毒清除时间定量分析研究较少。 目的：探讨新冠病毒Omicron株感染后免疫抑制和非免疫抑制儿童病毒清除的时间差别，为公共卫生政策制定和精准疫情防控措施提供临床数据。 设计：回顾性队列研究。 方法：以新冠病毒Omicron变异株感染住院患儿为队列人群，分为免疫抑制组和非免疫抑制组，免疫抑制分为绝对免疫抑制、相对免疫抑制和实施免疫抑制疗法，以免疫抑制组病例的性别、年龄和新冠病毒感染的分型与非免疫抑制组行1∶3匹配。以鼻咽拭子新冠病毒PCR检测拷贝数阈（Ct）值≥35为队列终点。 主要结局指标：新冠病毒清除时间。 结果：2022年4月12日至2022年5月12日在上海市新冠病毒感染定点收治医院符合本文共同纳入和排除标准的连续病例728例。免疫抑制组33例，其中绝对免疫抑制8例，相对免疫抑制23例，接受免疫抑制疗法2例（不包括绝对和相对免疫抑制患儿）。非免疫抑制组匹配后99例。2组临床症状、新冠病毒感染治疗和疫苗接种次数差异均无统计学意义。免疫抑制组和非免疫抑制组新冠病毒清除时间分别为（16.5±6.8）和（10.3±4.4）d，差异有统计学意义。免疫抑制组和非免疫抑制组新冠病毒感染轻型病例病毒清除时间分别为（14.0 ± 8.3）和（9.7 ± 3.1）d，普通型病例病毒清除时间分别为（18.3 ± 4.9）和（11.2 ± 5.9）d，差异均有统计学意义。2组单日病毒清除率在第9~14天时差异有统计学意义（P为0.005~0.039）。2组普通型病例单日病毒清除率在第10~15天时差异有统计学意义。免疫抑制组新冠病毒感染2周后核酸检测再次呈阳性3例（9%），临床分型均较前轻，3例均未接种新冠疫苗。 结论：Omicron株感染的免疫抑制患儿病毒清除时间较非免疫抑制患儿显著延长，主要反映在第9~14天，免疫抑制患儿病毒复阳风险高，提示需要更长的隔离时间和转阴后严格的病毒监测。     

Microwave Ablation versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Stage I Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PurposeTo assess the cost effectiveness of microwave ablation (MWA) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with inoperable stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Materials and MethodsA literature search was performed in MEDLINE with broad search clusters. A decision-analytic model was constructed over a 5-year period. The model incorporated treatment-related complications and long-term recurrence. All clinical parameters were derived from the literature with preference to long-term prospective trials. A healthcare payers’ perspective was adopted. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) extracted from prior studies and U.S. dollars from Medicare reimbursements and prior studies. Base case calculations, probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, and multiple 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsMWA yielded a health benefit of 2.31 QALYs at a cost of $195,331, whereas SBRT yielded a health benefit of 2.33 QALYs at a cost of $225,271. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,480,597/QALY, indicating that MWA is the more cost-effective strategy. The conclusion remains unchanged in probabilistic sensitivity analysis with MWA being the optimal cost strategy in 99.84% simulations. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that MWA remains cost effective when its annual recurrence risk is <18.4% averaged over 5 years, when the SBRT annual recurrence risk is >1.44% averaged over 5 years, or when MWA is at least $7,500 cheaper than SBRT.ConclusionsMWA appears to be more cost effective than SBRT for patients with inoperable stage I NSCLC.     

超声及应变式弹性成像预测超声引导下腘静脉置入血管鞘用于治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成成功与否

目的 分析超声及应变式弹性成像预测超声引导下置入腘静脉血管鞘治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)成功与否的价值。方法 回顾性分析103例接受超声引导下置入患侧腘静脉血管鞘的DVT患者的术前超声资料,比较置入血管鞘失败与成功病例腘静脉超声及应变式弹性成像表现差异;绘制差异有统计学意义超声参数的受试者工作特征曲线,获得其预测血管鞘置入失败的阈值,对每个参数阈值赋值1分,得到联合超声评分,以实际置入结果为标准,评价超声单一参数及联合评分的预测效能。结果 103例中,对100例行单侧、3例行双侧腘静脉置入血管鞘,包括左侧腘静脉71支、右侧35支,共106支腘静脉;对其中95支腘静脉置入血管鞘成功(成功组),11支失败(失败组)。相比成功组,失败组腘静脉内径及腘静脉与腘动脉内径比值均较小,血栓为等或高回声,与血管壁边界模糊,腘静脉应变式弹性评分为硬。以超声单一参数及联合评分预测置入血管鞘成功与否的曲线下面积分别为0.909、0.926、0.865、0.899、0.958及0.940(P均＜0.001)。结论 患侧腘静脉超声及应变式弹性成像能有效预测对下肢DVT患者行超声引导下置入腘静脉血管鞘成功与否。     

妊娠合并自发性卵巢过度刺激综合征一例

卵巢过度刺激综合征是辅助生殖技术常见的并发症,通常在排卵后2周或2周以上发生。然而自发性卵巢过度刺激综合征极其罕见,一些病例报道表明,自发性卵巢过度刺激综合征的发生与卵泡刺激素受体突变、高人绒毛膜促性腺激素水平、高促甲状腺激素水平、促性腺激素垂体腺瘤等有关。现报告1例双胎妊娠合并自发性卵巢过度刺激综合征的病例,并进一步探讨自发性卵巢过度刺激综合征的可能病因、诊断和治疗原则。