Search

Background and Objectives: Encouraging data have been reported from referral centers following gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Our goal was to retrospectively review patient outcomes following gastrectomy for gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer at a high-volume unit of the University of Athens. Methods: The enrollment period was from June 2003 to September 2018. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to identify variables independently associated with time-to-event outcomes. Results: A total of 205 patients were analyzed. R0 resection was achieved in 183 (89.3%) patients and was more likely to occur following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.008). Recurrence developed in 46.6% of our cohort and the median disease-free survival was 31.2 months. On multivariate analysis, only staging (HR = 2.15; 95% CI: 1.06–4.36) was independently associated with increased risk of recurrence. All-cause mortality was 57.2% and the median time of death was 40.9 months. On multivariate regression, staging (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.11–1.65) and recurrence (HR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.32–6.22) predicted inferior prognosis. Conclusions: Gastrectomy at the University of Athens has yielded favorable outcomes for patients with GEJ cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). The impact of concomitant baseline elevated pulmonary artery pressures on outcomes after TAVI has not been established, since different studies used different definitions of pulmonary hypertension (PH).Objective: To determine the association of PH with early and late cardiac and all-cause mortality after TAVI.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressures (defined as pulmonary hypertension or not) versus patients without elevated pulmonary artery pressures undergoing TAVI. We first performed stratified analyses based on the different PH cut-off values utilized by the included studies and subsequently pooled the studies irrespective of their cut-off values. We used a random effects model for the meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity with I-square. Separate meta-analyses were performed for studies reporting outcomes as hazards ratios (HRs) and relative risks (RRs). Subgroup analyses were performed for studies published before and after 2013. Meta-regression analysis in order to assess the effect of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mitral regurgitation were performed.Results: In total 22 studies were included in this systematic review. Among studies presenting results as HR, PH was associated with increased late cardiac mortality (HR: 1.8. 95% CI: 1.3-2.3) and late all-cause mortality (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.1-2). The PH cut-off value that was most likely to be associated with worst outcomes among the different endpoints was pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 60 mm Hg (HR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3-2.3; I2 = 0, for late cardiac mortality and HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1-2.1; I2 = 85% for late all-cause mortality).Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis emphasizes the importance of baseline PH in predicting mortality outcomes after TAVI. Additional studies are needed to clarify the association between elevated baseline pulmonary artery pressures and outcomes after TAVI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]