Endoscopic treatments of gastric mucosal lesions are not riskier in patients with chronic renal failure or liver cirrhosis
- Author(s)
- Young Lan Kwon; Eun Soo Kim; Kyung In Lee; Yong Jin Kim; Chang Wook Park; Yun Jung Kim; Hye Jin Seo; Kwang Bum Cho; Kyung Sik Park; Byoung Kuk Jang; Woo Jin Chung; Jae Seok Hwang
- Keimyung Author(s)
- Kim, Eun Soo; Cho, Kwang Bum; Park, Kyung Sik; Jang, Byoung Kuk; Chung, Woo Jin; Hwang, Jae Seok
- Department
- Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학)
- Journal Title
- Surgical Endoscopy
- Issued Date
- 2011
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Keyword
- Endoscopy; Chronic renal failure; Liver cirrhosis
- Abstract
- Background Little is known about the feasibility of
endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic
mucosal resection (EMR) for patients with chronic renal
failure (CRF) or liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to
assess the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of EMR
or ESD in patients with CRF or LC compared to those in
patients without.
Methods Between February 2003 and November 2009, a
total of 1016 gastric neoplastic lesions in 928 patients were
treated by using EMR or ESD. Among them, 18 patients
had LC and 17 patients had CRF. Their medical records
were reviewed retrospectively. En bloc resection rate,
histological complete resection rate, operation time, and
complications were compared between patients with CRF
or LC and those without (control group).
Results Baseline characteristics were not significantly
different between the CRF, LC, and control groups except
for a high rate of comorbidities in the CRF group and
prolonged prothrombin time in the LC group. Operation
time and therapeutic outcomes such as en bloc and complete
resection rates did not differ significantly between the
groups. Immediate bleeding tended to occur more frequently
in the CRF ? LC group than in controls (47.5 vs.
33.9%, p = 0.077). There was no significant difference in
the incidence of perforation between the CRF, LC, and
control groups. The hospital stay was longer in the
CRF ? LC group than in the control group (6.4 ± 3.53 vs.
4.9 ± 3.15 days, p = 0.012).
Conclusions EMR and ESD for the treatment of early
gastric neoplasia may be equally effective and tolerable in
the CRF or the LC group compared to the control group,
although patients with CRF or LC might need the longer
admission period than the control group.
Keywords Endoscopy Chronic renal failure Liver
cirrhosis Endoscopic techniques such as endoscopic mucosal
resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection
(ESD) have been accepted worldwide as alternative surgical
methods for early and superficial neoplastic lesions of
the gastrointestinal (GI) tract [1–3]. These techniques have
the advantages of being less invasive and more economical
than conventional surgical treatment [4]. The method of
ESD allows en bloc resection of larger or ulcerative
lesions, reducing the risk of residual tumor [5–8]. However,
complications such as bleeding and perforation have
been reported during EMR or ESD procedures [1–3, 9].
ESD is associated with a longer operation time and a higher
incidence of intraoperative bleeding and perforation than
EMR [1].
In general, patients with chronic diseases, including
chronic renal failure (CRF) or liver cirrhosis (LC), are
considered high-risk candidates for invasive treatments
because of a tendency to bleed and the vulnerability of
tissues [10]. Although there have been several reports
about clinical outcomes of open surgery for patients with
CRF or LC, little investigation has been carried out
regarding the feasibility of EMR or ESD in these patients
[11–14]. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of EMR and ESD in
patients with CRF or LC.
- 공개 및 라이선스
-
- 파일 목록
-
Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.