BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms in liver cirrhosis patients have not been adequately reported, leading to clinician concerns about adverse events, including bleeding and the deterioration of liver function. We compared the efficacy and safety of ESD between cirrhosis and noncirrhosis patients. METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2014, 158 cirrhosis patients underwent ESD for gastric neoplasms at a tertiary medical institution. Their clinical outcomes were compared with those of a propensity score-matched control group (158 patients) selected from noncirrhosis patients, using age, sex, histology, tumor location, and lesion size as variables. RESULTS: En bloc resection (96.8%), curative resection (89.9%), and adverse event (bleeding [10.1%] and perforation [1.9%]) rates in the cirrhosis group did not differ significantly from those in the noncirrhosis group. The median procedure time (25.0 vs 23.0 minutes) was also comparable between the groups. In a survival analysis cirrhosis patients exhibited a significantly higher mortality risk than noncirrhosis patients (hazard ratio [HR], 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-9.23; P = .01). Cirrhosis patients without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showed no statistically significant difference in mortality compared with the noncirrhosis group (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, .72-6.39; P = .171). Three of 153 patients (2%) exhibited a deterioration of prognosis from Child-Pugh class A to B. CONCLUSIONS: In compensated cirrhosis patients, especially those without HCC, ESD for gastric epithelial neoplasms can be performed with safety and efficacy comparable with that in noncirrhosis patients, without deterioration in liver function.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms in liver cirrhosispatients have not been adequately reported, leading to clinician concerns about adverse events, including bleeding and the deterioration of liver function. We compared the efficacy and safety of ESD between cirrhosis and noncirrhosis patients. METHODS: Between January 2005 and December 2014, 158 cirrhosispatients underwent ESD for gastric neoplasms at a tertiary medical institution. Their clinical outcomes were compared with those of a propensity score-matched control group (158 patients) selected from noncirrhosis patients, using age, sex, histology, tumor location, and lesion size as variables. RESULTS: En bloc resection (96.8%), curative resection (89.9%), and adverse event (bleeding [10.1%] and perforation [1.9%]) rates in the cirrhosis group did not differ significantly from those in the noncirrhosis group. The median procedure time (25.0 vs 23.0 minutes) was also comparable between the groups. In a survival analysis cirrhosispatients exhibited a significantly higher mortality risk than noncirrhosis patients (hazard ratio [HR], 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-9.23; P = .01). Cirrhosispatients without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showed no statistically significant difference in mortality compared with the noncirrhosis group (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, .72-6.39; P = .171). Three of 153 patients (2%) exhibited a deterioration of prognosis from Child-Pugh class A to B. CONCLUSIONS: In compensated cirrhosispatients, especially those without HCC, ESD for gastric epithelial neoplasms can be performed with safety and efficacy comparable with that in noncirrhosis patients, without deterioration in liver function.
Authors: Saurabh Chandan; Smit Deliwala; Shahab R Khan; Daryl Ramai; Babu P Mohan; Mohammad Bilal; Antonio Facciorusso; Lena L Kassab; Faisal Kamal; Banreet Dhindsa; Abhilash Perisetti; Douglas G Adler Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.487