MARCELO SIMAS DE LIMA
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
3 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
- Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer(2017) RETES, Felipe A.; KAWAGUTI, Fabio S.; LIMA, Marcelo S. de; MARTINS, Bruno da Costa; UEMURA, Ricardo S.; PAULO, Gustavo A. de; PENNACCHI, Caterina M. P.; GUSMON, Carla; RIBEIRO, Adriana V. S.; BABA, Elisa R.; GEIGER, Sebastian N.; SORBELLO, Mauricio P.; KULCSAR, Marco A.; RIBEIRO JR., Ulysses; MALUF-FILHO, FauzeBackground and study aims: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is associated with higher complication and mortality rates when compared to a general patient population. The pull technique is still the preferred technique worldwide but it has some limitations. The aim of this study is to compare the pull and introducer PEG techniques in patients with HNC. Patients and methods: This study is based on a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 309 patients with HNC who underwent PEG in the Cancer Institute of SAo Paulo. Results: The procedure was performed with the standard endoscope in 205 patients and the introducer technique was used in 137 patients. There was one procedure-related mortality. Age, sex and albumin level were similar in both groups. However in the introducer technique group, patients had a higher tumor stage, a lower Karnofsky status, and presented more frequently with tracheostomy and trismus. Overall, major, minor, immediate and late complications and 30-day mortality rates were similar but the introducer technique group presented more minor bleeding and tube dysfunctions. Conclusion: The push and introducer PEG techniques seem to be both safe and effective but present different complication profiles. The choice of PEG technique in patients with HNC should be made individually.
- Etiology, endoscopic management and mortality of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cancer(2013) MALUF-FILHO, Fauze; MARTINS, Bruno da Costa; LIMA, Marcelo Simas de; LEONARDO, Daniel Valdivia; RETES, Felipe Alves; KAWAGUTI, Fabio Shiguehissa; SATO, Cezar Fabiano Manabu; HONDO, Fabio Yuji; SAFATLE-RIBEIRO, Adriana Vaz; RIBEIRO JR., UlyssesBackground: The source and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in oncologic patients are poorly investigated. Objective: The study aimed to investigate these issues in a tertiary academic referral center specialized in cancer treatment. Methods: This was a retrospective study including all patients with cancer referred to endoscopy due to UGIB in 2010. Results: UGIB was confirmed in 147 (of 324 patients) referred to endoscopy for a suspected episode of GI bleeding. Tumor was the most common cause of bleeding (N = 35, 23.8%), followed by varices (N = 30, 19.7%), peptic ulcer (N = 29, 16.3%) and gastroduodenal erosions (N = 16, 10.9%). Among the 32 patients with cancer of the upper GI tract, the main causes of bleeding were cancer (N = 27, 84.4%) and peptic ulcer (N = 5, 6.3%). Forty-one patients (27.9%) presented with bleeding from the primary tumor or from a metastatic lesion, and seven received endoscopic therapy, with successful initial hemostasis in six (85.7%). Rebleeding and mortality rates were not different between endoscopically treated (N = 7) and nontreated (N = 34) patients (28.6% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.342; 43.9% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.677). Median survival was 20 days, and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 44.9%. There was no predictive factor of mortality or rebleeding. Conclusion: Tumor bleeding is the most common cause of UGIB in cancer patients. UGIB in cancer patients correlates with a high mortality rate regardless of the bleeding source. Current endoscopic treatments may not be effective in preventing rebleeding or improving survival.
- Argon plasma coagulation for the endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal tumor bleeding: A retrospective comparison with a non-treated historical cohort(2016) MARTINS, Bruno Costa; WODAK, Stephanie; GUSMON, Carla C.; SAFATLE-RIBEIRO, Adriana Vaz; KAWAGUTI, Fabio Shiguehissa; BABA, Elisa Ryoka; PENNACCHI, Caterina M. P.; LIMA, Marcelo Simas; RIBEIRO JR., Ulysses; MALUF-FILHO, FauzeBackground: The endoscopic use of argon plasma coagulation (APC) to achieve hemostasis for upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding (UGITB) has not been adequately evaluated in controlled trials. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of APC for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding from malignant lesions. Methods: Between January and September 2011, all patients with UGITB underwent high-potency APC therapy (up to 70 Watts). This group was compared with a historical cohort of patients admitted between January and December 2010, when the endoscopic treatment of bleeding malignancies was not routinely performed. Patients were stratified into two categories, grouping the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale: Category I (ECOG 0-2) patients with a good clinical status and Category II (ECOG 3-4) patients with a poor clinical status. Results: Our study had 25 patients with UGITB whom underwent APC treatment and 28 patients whom received no endoscopic therapy. The clinical characteristics of the groups were similar, except for endoscopic active bleeding, which was more frequently detected in APC group. We had 15 patients in the APC group whom had active bleeding, and initial hemostasis was obtained in 11 of them (73.3%). In the control group, four patients had active bleeding. There were no differences in 30-day re-bleeding (33.3% in the APC group versus 14.3% in the control group; p=0.104) and 30-day mortality rates (20.8% in the APC group, versus 42.9% in the control group; p=0.091). When patients were categorized according to their ECOG status, we found that APC therapy had no impact in re-bleeding and mortality rates (Group I: APC versus no endoscopic treatment: re-bleeding p=0.412, mortality p=0.669; Group II: APC versus no endoscopic treatment: re-bleeding p=0.505, mortality p=0.580). Hematemesis and site of bleeding located at the esophagus or duodenum were associated with a higher 30-day mortality. Conclusions: Endoscopic hemostasis of UGITB with APC has no significant impact on 30-day re-bleeding and mortality rates, irrespective of patient performance status.