SERGIO EIJI MATUGUMA

Índice h a partir de 2011
11
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico

Filtros

Limpar filtros

Configurações

Revista / Livro: Endoscopic Ultrasound ×

Resultados de Busca

Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
  • article 71 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2018) MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux De; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux De; BERNARDO, Wanderlei Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux De; BARACAT, Felipe I.; KONDO, Andre; MATUGUMA, Sergio Eijii; ARTIFON, Everson Luis Almeida
    Background and Aims: There are no systematic reviews comparing the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based brush cytology and forceps biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for the diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture; so in this revision, we will compare ERCP against EUS-FNA for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture. Design: A systematic review was conducted of comparative studies (prospective or retrospective) analyzing EUS and ERCP for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture. Materials and Methods: The databases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, LILACS, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched for studies dated previous to November 2014. We identified three prospective studies comparing EUS-FNA and ERCP for the diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture and five prospective studies comparing EUS-FNA with the same diagnosis of the other three studies. All patients were subjected to the same gold standard method. We calculated study variables (sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy) and performed a meta-analysis using the Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software. Results: A total of 294 patients were included in the analysis. The pretest probability for malignant biliary stricture was 76.66%. The mean sensitivities of ERCP and EUS-FNA for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture were 49% and 75%, respectively; the specificities were 96.33% and 100%, respectively. The posttest probabilities positive predictive value (98.33% and 100%, respectively) and negative predictive value (34% and 47%, respectively) were determined. The accuracies were 60.66% and 79%, respectively. Conclusion: We found that EUS-FNA was superior to ERCP with brush cytology and forceps biopsy for diagnosing malignant biliary strictures. However, a negative EUS-FNA or ERCP test may not exclude malignant biliary stricture because both have low negative posttest probabilities.
  • article 4 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    II Brazilian consensus statement on endoscopic ultrasonography
    (2017) MALUF-FILHO, Fauze; OLIVEIRA, Joel Fernandez de; MENDONCA, Ernesto Quaresma; CARBONARI, Augusto; MACIENTE, Bruno Antonio; SALOMAO, Bruno Chaves; MEDRADO, Bruno Frederico; DOTTI, Carlos Marcelo; LOPES, Cesar Vivian; BRAGA, Claudia Utsch; DUTRA, Daniel Alencar M.; RETES, Felipe; NAKAO, Frank; SOUSA, Giovana Biasia de; PAULO, Gustavo Andrade de; ARDENGH, Jose Celso; SANTOS, Juliana Bonfim dos; SAMPAIO, Luciana Moura; OKAWA, Luciano; ROSSINI, Lucio; CARDOSO, Manoel Carlos de Brito; CAMUNHA, Marco Antonio Ribeiro; CLARENCIO, Marcos; SANTOS, Marcos Eduardo Lera dos; FRANCO, Matheus; SCHNEIDER, Nutianne Camargo; MASCARENHAS, Ramiro; RODA, Rodrigo; MATUGUMA, Sergio; GUARALDI, Simone; FIGUEIREDO, Viviane
    Background and Objectives: At the time of its introduction in the early 80s, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was indicated for diagnostic purposes. Recently, EUS has been employed to assist or to be the main platform of complex therapeutic interventions. Methods: From a series of relevant new topics in the literature and based on the need to complement the I Brazilian consensus on EUS, twenty experienced endosonographers identified and reviewed the pertinent literature in databases. The quality of evidence, strength of recommendations, and level of consensus were graded and voted on. Results: Consensus was reached for eight relevant topics: treatment of gastric varices, staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer, biliary drainage, tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs), treatment of pancreatic fluid collections, tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions, celiac neurolysis, and evaluation of the incidental pancreatic cysts. Conclusions: There is a high level of evidence for staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer; biopsy of SELs as the safest method; unilateral and bilateral injection techniques are equivalent for EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, and in patients with visible ganglia, celiac ganglia neurolysis appears to lead to better results. There is a moderate level of evidence for: yield of tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions is not influenced by the needle shape, gauge, or employed aspiration technique; EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage present similar clinical success and adverse event rates; plastic and metallic stents are equivalent in the EUS-guided treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst. There is a low level of evidence in the routine use of EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices.
  • article 28 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatogrphy in suspected choledocholithiasis: A systematic review
    (2016) CASTRO, Vinicius Leite De; MOURA, Eduardo G. H.; CHAVES, Dalton M.; BERNARDO, Wanderley M.; MATUGUMA, Sergio E.; ARTIFON, Everson L. A.
    Background and Objectives: There is a lack of consensus about the optimal noninvasive strategy for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Two previous systematic reviews used different methodologies not based on pretest probabilities that demonstrated no statistically significant difference between Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for the detection of choledocholithiasis. In this article, we made a comparison of the diagnostic ability of EUS and MRCP to detect choledocholithiasis in suspected patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations with all published randomized prospective trials. We performed the systemic review using MedLine, EMBASE, Cochrane, LILACS, and Scopus reviews through May 2015. We identified eight randomized, prospective, blinded trials comparing EUS and MRCP. All the patients were submitted to a gold standard method. We calculated the study-specific variables and performed analyses using aggregated variables such as sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Results: Five hundred and thirty eight patients were included in the analysis. The pretest probability for choledocholithiasis was 38.7. The mean sensitivity of EUS and MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis was 93.7 and 83.5, respectively; the specificity was 88.5 and 91.5, respectively. Regarding EUS and MRCP, PPV was 89 and 87.8, respectively, and NPV was 96.9 and 87.8, respectively. The accuracy of EUS and MRCP was 93.3 and 89.7, respectively. Conclusions: For the same pretest probability of choledocholithiasis, EUS has higher posttest probability when the result is positive and a lower posttest probability when the result is negative compared with MRCP.