AIM: To compare the tolerability of magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy for esophageal cancer screening with that of lugol chromoendoscopy. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and analyzed 51 patients who were at high risk for esophageal cancer. All patients were divided into two groups: a magnifying narrow band imaging group, and a lugol chromoendoscopy group, for comparison of adverse symptoms. Esophageal cancer screening was performed on withdrawal of the endoscope. The primary endpoint was a score on a visual analogue scale for heartburn after the examination. The secondary endpoints were scale scores for retrosternal pain and dyspnea after the examinations, change in vital signs, total procedure time, and esophageal observation time. RESULTS: The scores for heartburn and retrosternal pain in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly better than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (P = 0.004, 0.024, respectively, ANOVA for repeated measures). The increase in heart rate after the procedure was significantly greater in the lugol chromoendoscopy group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to other vital sign. The total procedure time and esophageal observation time in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly shorter than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (450 ± 116 vs 565 ± 174, P = 0.004, 44 ± 26 vs 151 ± 72, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION:Magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy reduced the adverse symptoms compared with lugol chromoendoscopy. Narrow band imaging endoscopy is useful and suitable for esophageal cancer screening periodically.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the tolerability of magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy for esophageal cancer screening with that of lugol chromoendoscopy. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and analyzed 51 patients who were at high risk for esophageal cancer. All patients were divided into two groups: a magnifying narrow band imaging group, and a lugol chromoendoscopy group, for comparison of adverse symptoms. Esophageal cancer screening was performed on withdrawal of the endoscope. The primary endpoint was a score on a visual analogue scale for heartburn after the examination. The secondary endpoints were scale scores for retrosternal pain and dyspnea after the examinations, change in vital signs, total procedure time, and esophageal observation time. RESULTS: The scores for heartburn and retrosternal pain in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly better than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (P = 0.004, 0.024, respectively, ANOVA for repeated measures). The increase in heart rate after the procedure was significantly greater in the lugol chromoendoscopy group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to other vital sign. The total procedure time and esophageal observation time in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly shorter than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (450 ± 116 vs 565 ± 174, P = 0.004, 44 ± 26 vs 151 ± 72, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy reduced the adverse symptoms compared with lugol chromoendoscopy. Narrow band imaging endoscopy is useful and suitable for esophageal cancer screening periodically.
Authors: R B Fagundes; S G de Barros; A C Pütten; E S Mello; M Wagner; L A Bassi; M A Bombassaro; D Gobbi; E B Souto Journal: Endoscopy Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: H Kondo; H Fukuda; H Ono; T Gotoda; D Saito; K Takahiro; K Shirao; H Yamaguchi; S Yoshida Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 9.427