Adherence to the 2011 American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement for the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus.

Considerable variability exists in adherence to practice guidelines for Barrett's esophagus (BE). Rapid advances in management approaches to BE led to a new American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) medical position statement in 2011. Our aim was to assess how well members of the AGA Clinical Practice section adhered to these guidelines. A self-administered survey incorporating questions on diagnostic criteria, cancer risk estimates, screening, surveillance, and therapeutics for BE was distributed electronically to 5850 North American members of the AGA Clinical Practice section. The response rate was 470 of 2040 opened e-mails (23%). Intestinal metaplasia was required for diagnosis of BE by 90%, but the Prague classification was used by only 53% of those aware of it. The annual risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma was reported as 0.1-0.5% by 76%. Screening practices were variable, with 35% screening all patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and 15% repeating endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease following a negative screening. Surveillance guidelines were followed by 79% for nondysplastic BE and 86% for low-grade dysplasia, with expert pathology confirmation of dysplasia reported by 86%. Proton pump inhibitor dosing was variable, with 18% administering twice-daily doses and 30% titrating dose to symptoms. Ablation therapy was recommended by 6% for nondysplastic BE, 38% for low-grade dysplasia, and 52% for high-grade dysplasia. There is satisfactory adherence to the new AGA guidelines with respect to diagnosis, cancer risk estimates, and surveillance intervals in a select group of respondents. However, adherence continues to be variable in the use of the Prague classification, screening, and dosing of antisecretory therapy. Use of ablation therapy increases with grade of dysplasia. The reason for continued variability in adherence to BE practice guidelines remains unclear, and more evidence-based guidance is required to enhance clinical practice.