Sanne N van Munster1, Anouk Overwater2, Rehan Haidry3, Raf Bisschops4, Jacques J G H M Bergman5, Bas L A M Weusten2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 4. Department Of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is safe and effective for eradicating Barrett's esophagus (BE) but is associated with significant postprocedural pain. Alternatively, balloon-based focal cryoablation (CRYO) has recently been developed, which preserves the extracellular matrix and might therefore be less painful. Although data for CRYO are still limited, uncontrolled studies suggest comparable safety and efficacy to RFA in eradicating limited BE areas. Therefore, secondary endpoints such as pain might become decisive for treatment selection. We aimed to compare efficacy and tolerability between focal CRYO and RFA. METHODS: We identified BE patients undergoing focal ablation (either RFA or CRYO) of all visible BE from our prospective cohort in 2 Dutch referral centers. After ablation, patients completed a 14-day digital diary to assess chest pain (0-10), dysphagia (0-4), and analgesics use. A follow-up endoscopy was scheduled after 3 months to assess the BE surface regression (blindly scored by 2 independent BE expert endoscopists). Outcomes were BE surface regression; 14-day cumulative scores (area under the curves [AUCs]) for pain, dysphagia, analgesics, and peak pain. RESULTS: We identified 46 patients (20 CRYO, 26 RFA) with similar baseline characteristics. The BE regression was comparable (88% vs 90%, P = .62). AUCs for pain, dysphagia, and analgesics were significantly smaller after CRYO versus RFA (all P < .01). Peak pain was lower after CRYO (visual analog scale 2 vs 4, P < .01), and the duration of pain was also shorter after CRYO (2 vs 4 days, P < .01). CRYO patients used analgesics for 2 days versus 4 days for RFA (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter, nonrandomized cohort study, we found no differences in efficacy after a single treatment with CRYO and RFA for short-segment BE. Patients reported less pain after CRYO as compared with RFA. Moreover, CRYO patients used fewer analgesics. Our results suggest a different pain course favoring CRYO over RFA, but a randomized trial is needed for definitive conclusions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02249975.).
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is safe and effective for eradicating Barrett's esophagus (BE) but is associated with significant postprocedural pain. Alternatively, balloon-based focal cryoablation (CRYO) has recently been developed, which preserves the extracellular matrix and might therefore be less painful. Although data for CRYO are still limited, uncontrolled studies suggest comparable safety and efficacy to RFA in eradicating limited BE areas. Therefore, secondary endpoints such as pain might become decisive for treatment selection. We aimed to compare efficacy and tolerability between focal CRYO and RFA. METHODS: We identified BE patients undergoing focal ablation (either RFA or CRYO) of all visible BE from our prospective cohort in 2 Dutch referral centers. After ablation, patients completed a 14-day digital diary to assess chest pain (0-10), dysphagia (0-4), and analgesics use. A follow-up endoscopy was scheduled after 3 months to assess the BE surface regression (blindly scored by 2 independent BE expert endoscopists). Outcomes were BE surface regression; 14-day cumulative scores (area under the curves [AUCs]) for pain, dysphagia, analgesics, and peak pain. RESULTS: We identified 46 patients (20 CRYO, 26 RFA) with similar baseline characteristics. The BE regression was comparable (88% vs 90%, P = .62). AUCs for pain, dysphagia, and analgesics were significantly smaller after CRYO versus RFA (all P < .01). Peak pain was lower after CRYO (visual analog scale 2 vs 4, P < .01), and the duration of pain was also shorter after CRYO (2 vs 4 days, P < .01). CRYO patients used analgesics for 2 days versus 4 days for RFA (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter, nonrandomized cohort study, we found no differences in efficacy after a single treatment with CRYO and RFA for short-segment BE. Patients reported less pain after CRYO as compared with RFA. Moreover, CRYO patients used fewer analgesics. Our results suggest a different pain course favoring CRYO over RFA, but a randomized trial is needed for definitive conclusions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02249975.).
Authors: Lei Chen; Yanqiao Ren; Tao Sun; Yanyan Cao; Liangliang Yan; Weihua Zhang; Tao Ouyang; Chuansheng Zheng Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Donevan R Westerveld; Khaai Nguyen; Debdeep Banerjee; Chelsea Jacobs; Nikhil Kadle; Peter V Draganov; Dennis Yang Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-01-22
Authors: Mate Knabe; Torsten Beyna; Thomas Rösch; Jacques Bergman; Hendrik Manner; Andrea May; Guido Schachschal; Horst Neuhaus; Jennis Kandler; Bas Weusten; Oliver Pech; Siegbert Faiss; Mario Anders; Michael Vieth; Susanne Sehner; Raf Bisschops; Pradeep Bhandari; Christian Ell; Hanno Ehlken Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Cormac G Magee; David Graham; Charles Gordon; Jason Dunn; Ian Penman; Robert Willert; Howard Smart; Jacobo Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo; Krish Ragunath; Martin Everson; Durayd Alzoubaidi; Matthew Banks; Danielle Morris; Sarmed Sami; Allan J Morris; Pradeep Bhandari; Ravi Narayanasamy; Massimiliano Di Pietro; Laurence B Lovat; Rehan Haidry Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 4.584