BACKGROUND & AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is safe and effective treatment for flat dysplasia associated with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, there are limited data on the safety of RFA in patients who had prior endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which might increase the risk of complications. We compared complications and histologic outcomes between patients who had EMR before RFA and those who received only RFA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data collected from patients treated for BE, associated with dysplasia or intramucosal cancer, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from 1998-2009. Patients were divided into groups that had RFA after EMR (group 1, n = 44) or only RFA (group 2, n = 46). We compared the incidence of complications (strictures, bleeding, and esophageal perforation) and histologic features (complete resolution of dysplasia and complete resolution of intestinal metaplasia [CR-IM]) between groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of stricture formation. RESULTS: Stricture rates were 14% in group 1 and 9% in group 2 (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-9.74). The rates of CR-IM were 43% in group 1 and 74% in group 2 (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.78). The rates of complete resolution of dysplasia were 76% in group 1 and 71% in group 2 (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.39-4.17). The adjusted odds ratio for CR-IM in group 1 (adjusting for age, segment length, and grade of dysplasia) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.66). CONCLUSIONS: Stricture rates among patients who receive only RFA are comparable to those of patients who had prior EMR. EMR appears safe to perform prior to RFA.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is safe and effective treatment for flat dysplasia associated with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, there are limited data on the safety of RFA in patients who had prior endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which might increase the risk of complications. We compared complications and histologic outcomes between patients who had EMR before RFA and those who received only RFA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data collected from patients treated for BE, associated with dysplasia or intramucosal cancer, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from 1998-2009. Patients were divided into groups that had RFA after EMR (group 1, n = 44) or only RFA (group 2, n = 46). We compared the incidence of complications (strictures, bleeding, and esophageal perforation) and histologic features (complete resolution of dysplasia and complete resolution of intestinal metaplasia [CR-IM]) between groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of stricture formation. RESULTS: Stricture rates were 14% in group 1 and 9% in group 2 (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-9.74). The rates of CR-IM were 43% in group 1 and 74% in group 2 (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.78). The rates of complete resolution of dysplasia were 76% in group 1 and 71% in group 2 (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.39-4.17). The adjusted odds ratio for CR-IM in group 1 (adjusting for age, segment length, and grade of dysplasia) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.66). CONCLUSIONS: Stricture rates among patients who receive only RFA are comparable to those of patients who had prior EMR. EMR appears safe to perform prior to RFA.
Authors: Femke P Peters; Mohammed A Kara; Wouter L Curvers; Wilda D Rosmolen; Paul Fockens; Kausilia K Krishnadath; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Jacques J G H M Bergman Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Virender K Sharma; Kenneth K Wang; Bergein F Overholt; Charles J Lightdale; M Brian Fennerty; Patrick J Dean; Douglas K Pleskow; Ram Chuttani; Alvaro Reymunde; Nilda Santiago; Kenneth J Chang; Michael B Kimmey; David E Fleischer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ganapathy A Prasad; Kenneth K Wang; Navtej S Buttar; Louis-Michel Wongkeesong; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Roos E Pouw; Katja Wirths; Pierre Eisendrath; Carine M Sondermeijer; Fiebo J Ten Kate; Paul Fockens; Jacques Devière; Horst Neuhaus; Jacques J Bergman Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jennifer Chennat; Vani J A Konda; Andrew S Ross; Alberto Herreros de Tejada; Amy Noffsinger; John Hart; Shang Lin; Mark K Ferguson; Mitchell C Posner; Irving Waxman Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ganapathy A Prasad; Navtej S Buttar; Louis M Wongkeesong; Jason T Lewis; Schuyler O Sanderson; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Hannah P Kim; William J Bulsiewicz; Cary C Cotton; Evan S Dellon; Melissa B Spacek; Xiaoxin Chen; Ryan D Madanick; Sarina Pasricha; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Kyle A Perry; Jon P Walker; Mario Salazar; Andrew Suzo; Jeffrey W Hazey; W Scott Melvin Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Adam C Strauss; Agoston T Agoston; Parambir S Dulai; Amitabh Srivastava; Richard I Rothstein Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: N Li; S Pasricha; W J Bulsiewicz; R E Pruitt; S Komanduri; H C Wolfsen; G W Chmielewski; F S Corbett; K J Chang; N J Shaheen Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Milli Gupta; Prasad G Iyer; Lori Lutzke; Emmanuel C Gorospe; Julian A Abrams; Gary W Falk; Gregory G Ginsberg; Anil K Rustgi; Charles J Lightdale; Timothy C Wang; David I Fudman; John M Poneros; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 22.682