Search

Your search keyword '"Mendoza Ladd, Antonio H."' showing total 14 results
Start Over Author "Mendoza Ladd, Antonio H."
14 results on '"Mendoza Ladd, Antonio H."'

1. EUS-guided Gastroenterostomy

Author

Kahaleh, Michel, Tyberg, Amy, Sameera, Sohini, Sarkar, Avik, Shahid, Haroon M., Abdelqader, Abdelhai, Gjeorgjievski, Mihajlo, Gaidhane, Monica, Muniraj, Thiruvengadam, Jamidar, Priya A., Aslanian, Harry R., Abraham, Mathew, Lajin, Michael, Kedia, Prashant, Nieto, Jose, Parsa, Nasim, Andalib, Iman, Bashir, Muhammad, Kowalski, Thomas E., Loren, David E., Kumar, Anand, Schlachterman, Alexander, Chiang, Austin, Holmes, Ian, Mendoza Ladd, Antonio H., Oleas, Roberto, Zolotarevsky, Eugene, Robles-Medranda, Carlos, and Barthet, Marc

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. EUS-guided Gastroenterostomy

Author

Kahaleh, Michel, primary, Tyberg, Amy, additional, Sameera, Sohini, additional, Sarkar, Avik, additional, Shahid, Haroon M., additional, Abdelqader, Abdelhai, additional, Gjeorgjievski, Mihajlo, additional, Gaidhane, Monica, additional, Muniraj, Thiruvengadam, additional, Jamidar, Priya A., additional, Aslanian, Harry R., additional, Abraham, Mathew, additional, Lajin, Michael, additional, Kedia, Prashant, additional, Nieto, Jose, additional, Parsa, Nasim, additional, Andalib, Iman, additional, Bashir, Muhammad, additional, Kowalski, Thomas E., additional, Loren, David E., additional, Kumar, Anand, additional, Schlachterman, Alexander, additional, Chiang, Austin, additional, Holmes, Ian, additional, Mendoza Ladd, Antonio H., additional, Oleas, Roberto, additional, Zolotarevsky, Eugene, additional, Robles-Medranda, Carlos, additional, and Barthet, Marc, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. ID: 3527191 EUS-GUIDED GASTROENTEROSTOMY: A MULTICENTER INTERNATIONAL STUDY COMPARING BENIGN AND MALIGNANT DISEASES

Author

Kahaleh, Michel, primary, Tyberg, Amy, additional, Sameera, Sohini, additional, Sarkar, Avik, additional, Shahid, Haroon M., additional, Abdelqader, Abdelhai, additional, Gjeorgjievski, Mihajlo, additional, Gaidhane, Monica, additional, Muniraj, Thiruvengadam, additional, Jamidar, Priya A., additional, Aslanian, Harry R., additional, Abraham, Mathew, additional, Lajin, Michael, additional, Kedia, Prashant, additional, Nieto, Jose, additional, Parsa, Nasim, additional, Andalib, Iman, additional, Bashir, Muhammad, additional, Kowalski, Thomas E., additional, Loren, David E., additional, Kumar, Anand, additional, Schlachterman, Alexander, additional, Chiang, Austin L., additional, Holmes, Ian, additional, Mendoza Ladd, Antonio H., additional, Oleas, Roberto, additional, Zolotarevsky, Eugene, additional, Robles-Medranda, Carlos, additional, and Barthet, Marc, additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Endoscopic Treatment of Esophageal Varices

Author

Zuckerman, Marc J., Elhanafi, Sherif, and Mendoza-Ladd, Antonio H.

Abstract

Acute variceal bleeding is a serious complication of portal hypertension, usually due to cirrhosis, with high morbidity and mortality. There are three scenarios for the endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices: role in the prevention of first variceal bleed, treatment of active variceal bleed, and prevention of rebleeding. Patients with cirrhosis should be screened for esophageal varices. Esophageal varices screening and surveillance intervals for upper endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis have been recommended. The recommended type of endoscopic therapy for acute variceal bleeding is endoscopic variceal banding. This should be repeated at intervals until eradication of esophageal varices to prevent rebleeding. Although banding is the first choice treatment for acute variceal bleeding, there are certain situations where sclerotherapy may have a role. Treatment with either a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a self-expanding covered metallic esophageal stent can be used for acute variceal bleeding refractory to standard pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy. Sengstaken-Blakemore tube placement can be done with endoscopic assistance. Balloon tamponade and esophageal stent placement are considered bridge therapy until rescue TIPS is performed.

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. EUS-guided Gastroenterostomy: A Multicenter International Study Comparing Benign and Malignant Diseases.

Author

Kahaleh M, Tyberg A, Sameera S, Sarkar A, Shahid HM, Abdelqader A, Gjeorgjievski M, Gaidhane M, Muniraj T, Jamidar PA, Aslanian HR, Abraham M, Lajin M, Kedia P, Nieto J, Parsa N, Andalib I, Bashir M, Kowalski TE, Loren DE, Kumar A, Schlachterman A, Chiang A, Holmes I, Mendoza Ladd AH, Oleas R, Zolotarevsky E, Robles-Medranda C, and Barthet M

Subjects
Humans, Male, Female, Middle Aged, Aged, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Length of Stay, Adult, Endosonography methods, Gastroenterostomy methods, Gastroenterostomy adverse effects, Gastric Outlet Obstruction surgery, Gastric Outlet Obstruction etiology
Abstract

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a minimally invasive therapy for patients with gastric outlet obstruction without the risks of surgical bypass and the limited long-term efficacy of enteral self-expanding metal stent placement. However, due to its novelty, there is a lack of significant data comparing long-term outcomes of patients with EUS-GE, based on the underlying disease. In this study, we compare outcomes of EUS-GE on benign versus malignant indications., Methods: Consecutive patients from 12 international, tertiary care centers who underwent EUS-GE over 3 years were extracted in a retrospective registry. Demographic characteristics, procedure-related information and follow-up data was collected. Primary outcome was the rate of adverse events associated with EUS-GE and the comparison of the rate of adverse events in benign versus malignant diseases. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success as well as hospitalization admission., Results: A total of 103 patients were included: 72 malignant and 31 benign. The characteristics of the patients undergoing EUS-GE is shown in Table 1. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years and 58 years for malignant and benign etiology. Gender distribution was 57% and 39% being females in malignant and benign etiology group, respectively. Clinical success, technical success, average procedure time, and hospital length of stay were similar in both groups. Patients with benign underlying etiology had significantly higher number of surgically altered midgut anatomy ( P =0.0379)., Conclusion: EUS-GE is equally efficient regardless of the underlying etiology (malignant vs. benign), and the adverse events both groups were comparable., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results