EDUARDO GUIMARAES HOURNEAUX DE MOURA
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/35 - Laboratório de Nutrição e Cirurgia Metabólica do Aparelho Digestivo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/35 - Laboratório de Nutrição e Cirurgia Metabólica do Aparelho Digestivo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
101 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 10 de 101
- Endoscopic Approaches for Post Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Leaks: How to Choose the Best Tool for Each Task(2023) BESTETTI, Alexandre Moraes; OLIVEIRA, Victor Lira de; SILVEIRA, Saullo Queiros; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux de; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de
- The Effectiveness and Safety of the Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Liner (DJBL) for the Management of Obesity and Glycaemic Control: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials(2023) YVAMOTO, Erika Yuki; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; PROENCA, Igor Mendonca; MONTE JUNIOR, Epifanio Silvino do; RIBEIRO, Igor Braga; RIBAS, Pedro Henrique Boraschi Vieira; HEMERLY, Matheus Candido; OLIVEIRA, Victor Lira de; SANCHEZ-LUNA, Sergio A.; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deIntroduction The duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is a less-invasive treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods This is a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing DJBL versus sham or pharmacotherapies aiming to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DJBL. Results Ten RCTs (681 patients) were included. The DJBL group showed superior excess weight loss (+ 11.4% [+ 7.75 to + 15.03%], p < 0.00001) and higher decrease in HbA1c compared to the control group (- 2.73 +/- 0.5 vs. - 1.73 +/- 0.4, p = 0.0001). Severe adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 19.7%. Conclusion The DJBL did not reach the ASGE/ASMBS thresholds for the treatment of obesity. However, it is important to state that many SAEs were not really severe. Therefore, we believe this therapy plays an important role in the management obesity and T2DM.
- A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis(2018) GUEDES, Hugo Goncalo; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; DUARTE, Ralph Braga; CORDERO, Martin Andres Coronel; SANTOS, Marcos Eduardo Lera dos; CHENG, Spencer; MATUGUMA, Sergio Eiji; CHAVES, Dalton Marques; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deOur aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.
- Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis(2023) MOLL, Caroline Flaksbaum; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; RIBEIRO, Igor Braga; PROENCA, Igor Mendoca; MONTE JUNIOR, Epifanio Silvino do; SANCHEZ-LUNA, Sergio A.; MERCHAN, Maria Fernanda Shinin; INTRIAGO, Josselyn Mariana Vera; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deBiliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde chol-angiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was per-formed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demon-strated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complica-tions (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05-0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD =-2.89; 95% CI-3.35 --2,43;p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clini-cal success (RD =-0.19; 95% CI-0.27 --0.11;p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage compli-cations, and seeding metastases.
- Endoscopic Management of Anchor Erosion Adjacent to the Pylorus Following Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Sleeve(2019) MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux De; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; GALVAO-NETO, Manoel; SAKAI, Christiano Makoto; SILVA, Gustavo Luis Rodela; BAZARBASHI, Ahmad Najdat; THOMPSON, Christopher C.Introduction Obesity is a pandemic associated with significant comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes (T2DM). RYGB is an effective treatment modality for obesity and T2DM. However, bariatric surgery is currently limited to a relatively small population of patients. The duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve (DJBS) has recently emerged as a promising therapy for obesity and T2DM by providing similar physiological effects to RYGB. We describe a case of a patient with a previously placed DJBS presenting with abdominal pain from anchor erosion managed with an endoscopic approach. Methods A 58-year-old man with obesity and T2DM who had failed prior medical therapy for obesity was referred for DJBS placement. This was placed without complications. At 8 weeks follow-up, he developed abdominal pain and vomiting prompting immediate endoscopic evaluation. Results EGD revealed an anchor erosion resulting in mild stenosis of the pylorus. Additionally, hyperplastic tissue was found to be adhered to the device in the duodenal bulb. Endoscopic removal with balloon dilation was unsuccessful, and a stent was placed in a ""stent-in-stent"" fashion through the sleeve to compress the area of tissue ingrowth encouraging local tissue necrosis and device extraction. At 15 days follow-up, the stent was removed; however, the DJBS remained adhered and immobile. Next, the ingrowing hyperplastic tissue was resected in a piecemeal fashion. This resulted in mobilization of the sleeve anchors in the duodenal bulb and successful removal of the DJBS. Conclusions DJBS endoscopic removal is safe and effective even in challenging cases, thus preventing the need for surgical intervention.
- Pure Cut or Endocut for Biliary Sphincterotomy? A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial(2023) FUNARI, Mateus Pereira; BRUNALDI, Vitor Ottoboni; PROENCA, Igor Mendonca; GOMES, Pedro Victor Aniz; QUEIROZ, Lucas Tobias Almeida; VIEIRA, Yuri Zamban; MATUGUMA, Sergio Eiji; IDE, Edson; FRANZINI, Tomazo Antonio Prince; SANTOS, Marcos Eduardo Lera dos; CHENG, Spencer; MINATA, Mauricio Kazuyoshi; SANTOS, Jose Sebastio dos; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; KEMP, Rafael; MOURA, Eduardo Guimares Hourneaux deINTRODUCTION: Adverse events (AE) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are not uncommon and post-ERCP acute pancreatitis (PEP) is the most important one. Thermal injury from biliary sphincterotomy may play an important role and trigger PEP or bleeding. Therefore, this study evaluated the outcomes of 2 electric current modes used during biliary sphincterotomy. METHODS: From October 2019 to August 2021, consecutive patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy were randomized to either the pure cut or endocut after cannulation. The primary outcome was PEP incidence. Secondary outcomes included intraprocedural and delayed bleeding, infection, and perforation. RESULTS: A total of 550 patients were randomized (272 pure cut and 278 endocut). The overall PEP rate was 4.0% and significantly higher in the endocut group (5.8% vs 2.2%, P = 0.034). Univariate analysis revealed >5 attempts (P = 0.004) and endocut mode (P = 0.034) as risk factors for PEP. Multivariate analysis revealed >5 attempts (P = 0.005) and a trend for endocut mode as risk factors for PEP (P = 0.052). Intraprocedural bleeding occurred more often with pure cut (P = 0.018), but all cases were controlled endoscopically during the ERCP. Delayed bleeding was more frequent with endocut (P = 0.047). There was no difference in perforation (P = 1.0) or infection (P = 0.4999) between the groups. DISCUSSION: Endocut mode may increase thermal injury leading to higher rates of PEP and delayed bleeding, whereas pure cut is associated with increased intraprocedural bleeding without clinical repercussion. The electric current mode is not related to perforation or infection. Further RCT assessing the impact of electric current on AE with overlapping preventive measures such as rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and hyperhydration are needed. The study was submitted to the Brazilian Clinical Trials Platform (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br) under the registry number RBR-5d27tn.
- Propofolvsmidazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials(2020) GUACHO, John Alexander Lata; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; RIBEIRO, Igor Braga; PONTE NETO, Alberto Machado da; SINGH, Shailendra; TUCCI, Marina Gammaro Baldavira; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deBACKGROUND Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging. AIM To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach. METHODS This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager. RESULTS The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13,P= 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79,P< 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50,P< 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04,P= 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07,P= 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07,P= 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04,P= 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time. CONCLUSION This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.
- Homemade endoscopic vacuum therapy device for the management of transmural gastrointestinal defects(2023) MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; HIRSCH, Bruno Salomao; MCCARTY, Thomas R.; SANTOS, Marcos Eduardo dos; GUEDES, Hugo Goncalo; GOMES, Guilherme Francisco; MEDEIROS, Flaubert Sena de; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deObjectivesEndoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) possesses a unique mechanism of action providing a less invasive alternative for the management of transmural gastrointestinal defects (TGID). This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of a novel homemade EVT (H-EVT) for the treatment of TGID. MethodsRetrospective multicenter study including patients who underwent H-EVT for TGID between January 2019 and January 2022. Main outcomes included technical and clinical success as well as safety outcomes. Subgroup analyses were included by defect location and classification. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for successful closure. ResultsA total of 144 patients were included. Technical success was achieved in all patients, with clinical success achieved in 88.89% after a mean of 3.49 H-EVT exchanges over an average of 23.51 days. After excluding 10 cases wherein it was not possible to achieve negative pressure, successful closure occurred in 95.52% of patients. Time to clinical success was less for defects caused by endoscopic (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.20) compared to surgical procedures and for patients with simultaneous intracavitary and intraluminal H-EVT placement (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.91). Location and classification of defect did not impact clinical success rate. Simultaneous placement of both an intraluminal and intracavitary H-EVT (odds ratio 3.08; 95% CI 1.19-7.95) was a significant predictor of clinical success. Three device-related adverse events (2.08%) occurred. ConclusionsThe use of the H-EVT is feasible, safe, and effective for the management of TGID.
- Endoscopic septotomy for fistula after bariatric surgery(2022) BOGHOSSIAN, Mateus Bond; FUNARI, Mateus Pereira; MONTE JUNIOR, Epifanio Silvino do; ROCHA, Rodrigo Silva de Paula; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; SOUZA, Thiago Ferreira de; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux de
- Percutaneous endoscopic versus surgical gastrostomy in patients with benign and malignant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis(2016) BRAVO, Jose Goncalves Pereira; IDE, Edson; KONDO, Andre; MOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de; MOURA, Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de; SAKAI, Paulo; BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques; MOURA, Eduardo Guimaraes Hourneaux deTo compare the complications and mortality related to gastrostomy procedures performed using surgical and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques, this review covered seven studies. Five of these were retrospective and two were randomized prospective studies. In total, 406 patients were involved, 232 of whom had undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and 174 of whom had undergone surgical gastrostomy. The analysis was performed using Review Manager. Risk differences were computed using a fixed-effects model and forest and funnel plots. Data on risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the Mantel-Haenszel test. There was no difference in major complications in retrospective (95% CI (-0.11 to 0.10)) or randomized (95% CI (-0.07 to 0.05)) studies. Regarding minor complications, no difference was found in retrospective studies (95% CI (-00.17 to 0.09)), whereas a difference was observed in randomized studies (95% CI (-0.25 to -0.02)). Separate analyses of retrospective and randomized studies revealed no differences between the methods in relation to mortality and major complications. Moreover, low levels of minor complications were observed among endoscopic procedures in randomized studies, with no difference observed compared with retrospective studies.