MARCOS EDUARDO LERA DOS SANTOS
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
5 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 5 de 5
- Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis(2019) DELGADO, Aureo Augusto de Almeida; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; RIBEIRO, Igor Braga; BAZARBASHI, Ahmad Najdat; SANTOS, Marcos Eduardo Lera dos; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deBACKGROUND Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications. AIM To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures. METHODS A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39. RESULTS A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.01, I-2: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: -0.02-+0.04, I-2: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: -0.03, 95%CI: -0.06-+0.00, I-2: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62-+1.17, I-2: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: -31.85-+1.56, I-2: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: -0.13--0.02, I-2: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.08-+0.08, I-2: 85%), desaturation (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.02, I-2: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: -6.96-+2.88, I-2: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11-+87.60, I-2: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.002-+0.02, I-2: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: -0.05-+0.13, I-2: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-+0.22, I-2: 95%). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
- Self-expandable metal stent in lumen-apposing metal stent (the SEMS-in-LAMS procedure): a simple salvage procedure after LAMS misplacement(2019) LERA, Marcos E.; MATUGUMA, Sergio E.; MADRUGA-NETO, Antonio C.; BRUNALDI, Vitor O.; MINATA, Mauricio K.; GUEDES, Hugo G.; MOURA, Eduardo G. H. de
- Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for pancreatic pseudocysts Systematic review and meta-analysis(2019) FARIAS, Galileu F. A.; BERNARDO, Wanderley M.; MOURA, Diogo T. H. De; GUEDES, Hugo G.; BRUNALDI, Vitor O.; VISCONTI, Thiago A. de C.; GONCALVES, Caio V. T.; SAKAI, Christiano M.; MATUGUMA, Sergio E.; SANTOS, Marcos E. L. dos; SAKAI, Paulo; MOURA, Eduardo G. H. DeObjective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare surgical and endoscopic treatment for pancreatic pseudocyst (PP). Methods: The researchers did a search in Medline, EMBASE, Scielo/Lilacs, and Cochrane electronic databases for studies comparing surgical and endoscopic drainage of PP s in adult patients. Then, the extracted data were used to perform a meta-analysis. The outcomes were therapeutic success, drainage-related adverse events, general adverse events, recurrence rate, cost, and time of hospitalization. Results: There was no significant difference between treatment success rate (risk difference [RD] -0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.20,0.01]; P = .07), drainage-related adverse events (RD -0.02; 95% CI [-0.04,0.08]; P = .48), general adverse events (RD -0.05; 95% CI [-0.12, 0.02]; P = .13) and recurrence (RD: 0.02; 95% CI [-0.04,0.07]; P = .58) between surgical and endoscopic treatment. Regarding time of hospitalization, the endoscopic group had better results (RD: -4.23; 95% CI [-5.18, -3.29]; P < .00001). When it comes to treatment cost, the endoscopic arm also had better outcomes (RD: -4.68; 95% CI [-5.43,-3.94]; P < .00001). Conclusion: There is no significant difference between surgical and endoscopic treatment success rates, adverse events and recurrence for PP. However, time of hospitalization and treatment costs were lower in the endoscopic group.
- LUMEN-APPOSING METAL STENT AND ELETROCAUTERY ENHANCED DELIVERY SYSTEM (HOT AXIOSTM) FOR DRAINAGE OF WALLED-OFF NECROSIS: THE FIRST BRAZILIAN CASE REPORT(2019) DE-MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux; FARIAS, Galileu Ferreira Ayala; BRUNALDI, Vitor Ottoboni; TRANQUILLINI, Caio Vinicius; DOS-SANTOS, Marcos Eduardo Lera; MATUGUMA, Sergio Eijii; JUKEMURA, Jose; DE-MOURABRAZILIAN, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux
article Pancreatic Stent Placement for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis(2019) PORTELA, Joaquim Coelho da Cruz; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; FRANZINI, Tomazo Antonio Prince; COUTINHO, Lara Meireles de Azeredo; BRUNALDI, Vitor Ottoboni; GUEDES, Hugo Goncalo; MOURA, Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de; SANTOS, Marcos Eduardo Lera dos; LUZ, Gustavo Oliveira; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deBackground and Aims Acute pancreatitis is one common and severe complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Randomized controlled trials have reported that pancreatic stenting may efficiently prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Methods Systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed and other databases randomized controlled trials comparing patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with pancreatic stent versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography without stent. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility. Primary outcome is to assess the degree of severity of pancreatitis (mild, moderate, and severe) and secondary hyperamylasemia, cholangitis, abdominal pain, duration of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and length of hospital stay. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials selected a total of 3.310 patients. Meta-analysis showed that pancreatic stenting reduced pancreatitis risk to PEP (mild PEP: RD 0.06, 95% CI-0.09 - 0.03; moderate PEP: RD 0.03, 95 % CI-0.06 - 0.01; severe PEP: (RD 0.02, 95% CI-0.05-0.01); Hyperaylasemia (RD-0.62, 95% CI-0.65-0.59) showed statistically significant difference. Cholangitis (RD 0.03, 95% CI-0.03-0.09), abdominal pain (RD 0.10, 95% CI-0.21-0.01), length of hospital stay after ERCP (RD 1.55, 95% CI-4.39 - 1.29), total duration of the procedure (RD 2.97, 95% CI-0.19-6.12), showed no statistical significance. Conclusions Pancreatic stent placement is effective in reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis incidence in high-risk patients.