Back to Authors

Bardhi, Olgert

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5985-3372

Mayo Clinic

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Citations 2

Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies
Sawas, Tarek , Jones, Alex R. , Alsawas, Rand, Talluri, Rachna , Rogers, Hayley , Spezia-Lindner, David, Gerberi, Dana , Singh, Siddharth , Shaheen, Nicholas J. , Katzka, David A. , Wani, Sachin , Bardhi, Olgert , Gerberi, Danielle J , Bardhi, Olgert , Spezia-Lindner, David Ethan, Murad, M. Hassan

American Journal of Gastroenterology | March 31, 2025 | Volume: 121 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 140-150

10.14309/ajg.0000000000003456 Get It

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) but do not account for competing mortality unrelated to esophageal cancer (EC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate EC and non-EC mortality risk in BE patients. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies reporting mortality in BE. We included population-based studies providing standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The primary outcome was SMR from all causes and EC and non-EC etiologies. SMR was calculated by dividing the observed mortality over the expected mortality. Logarithmic form of SMRs was pooled using random-effects model. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,826 articles, of which 7 studies (n = 34,454) were included. All-cause mortality was elevated in BE patients compared with population controls (pooled SMR 1.24, 95% confident interval [CI] 1.01–1.53) driven in part by increased EC mortality risk (SMR 8.98, 95 CI 5.12–15.77). The mortality risk was still increased but attenuated after excluding EC mortality (SMR 1.21, 95% CI 1–1.46). There was no increased mortality risk of non-EC malignancies (SMR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82–1.82) or mortality due to noncancer etiologies (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 0.90–1.43). Death due to cardiovascular diseases was higher in BE (SMR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.33). BE patients were 10 times more likely to die from noncancer etiologies than EC (risk ratio 10.71, 95% CI 5.98–19.16). Subgroup analysis of studies that excluded prevalent EC at baseline (3 studies) also showed increased all-cause (SMR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07–1.18) and EC mortality (SMR 4.7, 95% CI 3.58–6.17) among BE patients. DISCUSSION: BE patients exhibit a higher all-cause mortality, driven in part by risk of EC mortality. A personalized approach to surveillance, mitigating risk of EC while recognizing the broader mortality risks, is warranted.
Early chemoprophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis does not increase the risk of hematoma expansion in patients presenting with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage
Laurent, Dimitri , Bardhi, Olgert , Kubilis, Paul , Corliss, Brian M. , Adamczak, Stephanie, Geh, Ndi, Vaziri, Sasha , Busl, Katharina M. , Bardhi, Olgert , Dodd, William , Fox, W Christopher

Surgical Neurology International | June 14, 2021 | Volume: 12 | Issue: No issue available | Pages: 277

10.25259/sni_100_2021 Get It

Background: Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The development of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, is correlated with negative outcomes following ICH. Due to the risk of hematoma expansion associated with the use of VTE chemoprophylaxis, there remains significant debate about the optimal timing for its initiation following ICH. We analyzed the risk of early chemoprophylaxis on hematoma expansion following ICH. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients presenting with spontaneous ICH at single institution between 2011 and 2018. The rate of hematoma expansion was compared between patients that received early chemoprophylaxis (on admission) and those that received conventional chemoprophylaxis (>24 h). Results: Data for 235 patients were available for analysis. Eleven patients (7.5%) in the early prophylaxis cohort and seven patients (8.0%) in the conventional prophylaxis cohort developed VTE (P = 0.9). Hematoma expansion also did not differ significantly (early 19%, conventional 23%, P = 0.5). Conclusion: The use of early chemoprophylaxis against venous thromboembolic events following ICH appears safe in our patient population without increasing the risk of hematoma expansion. Given the increased risk of poor outcome in the setting of VTE, early VTE chemoprophylaxis should be considered in patients who present with ICH. Larger, prospective, and randomized studies are necessary to better elucidate the risk of early chemoprophylaxis and potential reduction in venous thromboembolic events.