Comparison of covered and uncovered self-expandable stents in the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction

Background and objective: Drainage with metallic stents is the treatment of choice in malignant obstructive jaundice. Technical and clinical success with metallic stents is obtained in over 90% and 80% of cases, respectively. There are self-expandable metallic stents designed to increase permeability. The aim of this study was to describe the results obtained with totally covered self-expandable and uncovered self-expandable metallic stents in the palliative treatment of malignant biliary obstruction. Patients and methods: Sixty eight patients with malignant obstructive jaundice secondary to pancreatobiliary or metastatic disease not amenable to surgery were retrospectively included. Two groups were created: group A (covered self-expandable metallic stents) (n = 22) and group B (uncovered self-expandable metallic stents) (n = 46). Results: Serum total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase and gamma glutamyl transferase levels decreased in both groups and no statistically significant difference was detected (p = 0.800, p = 0.190, p = 0.743, p = 0.521). Migration was greater with covered stents but it was not statistically significant either (p = 0.101). Obstruction was greater in the group with uncovered stents but it was not statistically significant either (p = 0.476). Conclusion: There are no differences when using covered self-expandable stents or uncovered self-expandable stents in terms of technical and clinical success or complications in the palliative treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice.

Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients

Objective: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. Method: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. Results: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. Conclusions: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.