Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway

Background and study aims The standard radiofrequency ablation (RFA) protocol for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) encompasses an intermediary cleaning phase between two ablation sessions. A simplified protocol omitting the cleaning phase is less labor-intensive but equally effective in studies based on sin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wei Keith Tan, Krish Ragunath, Jonathan R. White, Jose Santiago, Jacobo Ortiz Fernandez-Sordo, Mirela Pana, Bincy Alias, Andreas V. Hadjinicolaou, Vijay Sujendran, Massimiliano di Pietro
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2020-01-01
Series:Endoscopy International Open
Online Access:http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1005-6331
id doaj-e7eacfea74d6458f84266c762c0abe9d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e7eacfea74d6458f84266c762c0abe9d2020-11-25T03:20:02ZengGeorg Thieme Verlag KGEndoscopy International Open2364-37222196-97362020-01-010802E189E19510.1055/a-1005-6331Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathwayWei Keith Tan0Krish Ragunath1Jonathan R. White2Jose Santiago3Jacobo Ortiz Fernandez-Sordo4Mirela Pana5Bincy Alias6Andreas V. Hadjinicolaou7Vijay Sujendran8Massimiliano di Pietro9MRC Cancer unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKNottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKMRC Cancer unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKMRC Cancer unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKDepartment of Surgery, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UKMRC Cancer unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKBackground and study aims The standard radiofrequency ablation (RFA) protocol for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) encompasses an intermediary cleaning phase between two ablation sessions. A simplified protocol omitting the cleaning phase is less labor-intensive but equally effective in studies based on single ablation procedures. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of the standard and simplified RFA protocols for the whole treatment pathway for BE, including both circumferential and focal devices. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients receiving RFA between January 2007 and August 2017 at two institutions. Outcomes assessed were: 1) complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) at 18 months; and 2) rate of esophageal strictures. Results One hundred forty-five patients were included of whom 73 patients received the standard and 72 patients received the simplified protocol. CR-D was achieved in 94.5 % and 95.8 % of patients receiving the standard and simplified protocol, respectively (P = 0.71). CR-IM was achieved in 84.9 % and 77.8 % of patients treated with the standard and simplified protocol, respectively (P = 0.27). Strictures were significantly more common among patients who received the simplified protocol (12.5 %) compared to the standard protocol (1.4 %; P = 0.008). The median number of esophageal dilations was one. Conclusion The simplified RFA protocol is as effective as the standard protocol in eradicating BE but carries a higher risk of strictures. This needs to be taken into account, particularly in patients with higher pretreatment risk of strictures, such as those with esophageal narrowing from previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1005-6331
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Wei Keith Tan
Krish Ragunath
Jonathan R. White
Jose Santiago
Jacobo Ortiz Fernandez-Sordo
Mirela Pana
Bincy Alias
Andreas V. Hadjinicolaou
Vijay Sujendran
Massimiliano di Pietro
spellingShingle Wei Keith Tan
Krish Ragunath
Jonathan R. White
Jose Santiago
Jacobo Ortiz Fernandez-Sordo
Mirela Pana
Bincy Alias
Andreas V. Hadjinicolaou
Vijay Sujendran
Massimiliano di Pietro
Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway
Endoscopy International Open
author_facet Wei Keith Tan
Krish Ragunath
Jonathan R. White
Jose Santiago
Jacobo Ortiz Fernandez-Sordo
Mirela Pana
Bincy Alias
Andreas V. Hadjinicolaou
Vijay Sujendran
Massimiliano di Pietro
author_sort Wei Keith Tan
title Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway
title_short Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway
title_full Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway
title_fullStr Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway
title_full_unstemmed Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway
title_sort standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for barrett’s esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
series Endoscopy International Open
issn 2364-3722
2196-9736
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Background and study aims The standard radiofrequency ablation (RFA) protocol for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) encompasses an intermediary cleaning phase between two ablation sessions. A simplified protocol omitting the cleaning phase is less labor-intensive but equally effective in studies based on single ablation procedures. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of the standard and simplified RFA protocols for the whole treatment pathway for BE, including both circumferential and focal devices. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients receiving RFA between January 2007 and August 2017 at two institutions. Outcomes assessed were: 1) complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) at 18 months; and 2) rate of esophageal strictures. Results One hundred forty-five patients were included of whom 73 patients received the standard and 72 patients received the simplified protocol. CR-D was achieved in 94.5 % and 95.8 % of patients receiving the standard and simplified protocol, respectively (P = 0.71). CR-IM was achieved in 84.9 % and 77.8 % of patients treated with the standard and simplified protocol, respectively (P = 0.27). Strictures were significantly more common among patients who received the simplified protocol (12.5 %) compared to the standard protocol (1.4 %; P = 0.008). The median number of esophageal dilations was one. Conclusion The simplified RFA protocol is as effective as the standard protocol in eradicating BE but carries a higher risk of strictures. This needs to be taken into account, particularly in patients with higher pretreatment risk of strictures, such as those with esophageal narrowing from previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).
url http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1005-6331
work_keys_str_mv AT weikeithtan standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT krishragunath standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT jonathanrwhite standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT josesantiago standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT jacoboortizfernandezsordo standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT mirelapana standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT bincyalias standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT andreasvhadjinicolaou standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT vijaysujendran standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
AT massimilianodipietro standardversussimplifiedradiofrequencyablationprotocolforbarrettsesophaguscomparativeanalysisofthewholetreatmentpathway
_version_ 1724619749393956864