Sedated and unsedated gastroscopy has no influence on the outcomes of patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective study.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Chengke Yin, Yiwu Sun, Jie Liang, Xin Sui, Zhaoyi He, Ailing Song, Wenjia Xu, Lei Zhang, Yufei Sun, Jingshun Zhao, Fei Han
{"title":"Sedated and unsedated gastroscopy has no influence on the outcomes of patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective study.","authors":"Chengke Yin, Yiwu Sun, Jie Liang, Xin Sui, Zhaoyi He, Ailing Song, Wenjia Xu, Lei Zhang, Yufei Sun, Jingshun Zhao, Fei Han","doi":"10.1186/s12885-024-13413-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Different anesthetic drugs and techniques may affect survival outcomes for gastric cancer (GC) after surgery. In this study, we investigated the association between sedated and unsedated gastroscopy on survival outcomes in patients with GC after surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective study of patients who were diagnosed with GC by gastroscopy and underwent gastrectomy from January 2013 to December 2017. They were grouped based on the examination modality: propofol-based sedated gastroscopy or unsedated gastroscopy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline variables. Survival outcomes and distant metastases were compared between these two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Finally, 673 patients were enrolled, 160 in the sedated gastroscopy group and 513 in the unsedated gastroscopy group. After PSM, there were 160 patients in each group. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes in the sedated gastroscopy group compared to the unsedated gastroscopy group before PSM (HR = 0.761, 95% CI: 0.531-1.091, P = 0.139) or after PSM (HR = 0.874, 95% CI: 0.564-1.355, P = 0.547). There was no significant difference in the incidence of distant metastases between the two groups before PSM (16.9% vs. 20.7%, P = 0.294) or after PSM (16.9% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.126). To confirm that our patients behaved similarly to other studies, we performed a multivariate analysis and the results showed that sex, pathological TNM stage, Borrmann type, adjuvant treatment, and surgical resection range were all independent factors affecting survival outcomes in our patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results showed no significant difference in the effects of sedated gastroscopy vs. unsedated gastroscopy on survival outcomes or distant metastases of patients after gastrectomy for GC.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11702075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-13413-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Different anesthetic drugs and techniques may affect survival outcomes for gastric cancer (GC) after surgery. In this study, we investigated the association between sedated and unsedated gastroscopy on survival outcomes in patients with GC after surgery.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients who were diagnosed with GC by gastroscopy and underwent gastrectomy from January 2013 to December 2017. They were grouped based on the examination modality: propofol-based sedated gastroscopy or unsedated gastroscopy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline variables. Survival outcomes and distant metastases were compared between these two groups.

Results: Finally, 673 patients were enrolled, 160 in the sedated gastroscopy group and 513 in the unsedated gastroscopy group. After PSM, there were 160 patients in each group. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes in the sedated gastroscopy group compared to the unsedated gastroscopy group before PSM (HR = 0.761, 95% CI: 0.531-1.091, P = 0.139) or after PSM (HR = 0.874, 95% CI: 0.564-1.355, P = 0.547). There was no significant difference in the incidence of distant metastases between the two groups before PSM (16.9% vs. 20.7%, P = 0.294) or after PSM (16.9% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.126). To confirm that our patients behaved similarly to other studies, we performed a multivariate analysis and the results showed that sex, pathological TNM stage, Borrmann type, adjuvant treatment, and surgical resection range were all independent factors affecting survival outcomes in our patients.

Conclusion: Our results showed no significant difference in the effects of sedated gastroscopy vs. unsedated gastroscopy on survival outcomes or distant metastases of patients after gastrectomy for GC.

一项回顾性研究:镇静和非镇静胃镜检查对胃癌患者的预后没有影响。
背景:不同的麻醉药物和麻醉技术可能影响胃癌术后的生存结局。在这项研究中,我们调查了镇静和非镇静胃镜检查与胃癌术后患者生存结局的关系。方法:回顾性研究2013年1月至2017年12月期间经胃镜诊断为胃癌并行胃切除术的患者。他们根据检查方式分组:基于异丙酚的镇静胃镜检查或非镇静胃镜检查。倾向评分匹配(PSM)用于平衡基线变量。比较两组的生存结局和远处转移情况。结果:最终纳入673例患者,镇静胃镜组160例,非镇静胃镜组513例。经PSM治疗后,每组160例。镇静胃镜组与非镇静胃镜组在PSM前(HR = 0.761, 95% CI: 0.531-1.091, P = 0.139)和PSM后(HR = 0.874, 95% CI: 0.564-1.355, P = 0.547)的总生存结局无显著差异。两组患者在PSM前(16.9% vs. 20.7%, P = 0.294)和PSM后(16.9% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.126)远处转移发生率无显著差异。为了证实我们的患者表现与其他研究相似,我们进行了多变量分析,结果显示性别、病理TNM分期、Borrmann型、辅助治疗和手术切除范围都是影响我们患者生存结果的独立因素。结论:我们的研究结果显示,镇静胃镜检查与非镇静胃镜检查对胃癌切除术后患者的生存结局或远处转移的影响无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信