BACKGROUND: Multi-band mucosectomy (MBM) is effective and safe for Barrett's neoplasia. No studies have yet compared the efficacy and safety of the MBM devices commercially available: Duette™ (CookMedical) and Captivator™ (BostonScientific). Our aim is to compare the two devices. METHODS: This is a dual-center retrospective case-control study (Rozzano, Portsmouth) comparing efficacy, safety, and histology of resected specimens between Duette™ (DUE) and Captivator™ (CAPT). Efficacy was assessed by R0 and local recurrence (LR) rate. Bleedings, perforations, and strictures were recorded as safety outcomes. Moreover, the specimens were re-examined by two pathologists, blinded about the study group, to assess the maximum thickness of both the whole specimens and the resected submucosal layer. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (38 per group) were included. The two groups did not differ in terms of baseline characteristics. R0 resection was achieved in 96.7% versus 96.3% (p = ns) and LR were recorded in 4/38 (10.5%) versus 3/38 (7.9%) in DUE and CAPT group, respectively (p = ns). Considering Duette™ versus Captivator™, 2 versus 3 patients developed a symptomatic stricture. Only one post-procedural bleeding occurred (Captivator™). Maximum medium thicknesses of specimens and of resected submucosa did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: MBM is safe and effective for resecting visible lesions using either of the two available devices.
BACKGROUND: Multi-band mucosectomy (MBM) is effective and safe for Barrett's neoplasia. No studies have yet compared the efficacy and safety of the MBM devices commercially available: Duette™ (CookMedical) and Captivator™ (BostonScientific). Our aim is to compare the two devices. METHODS: This is a dual-center retrospective case-control study (Rozzano, Portsmouth) comparing efficacy, safety, and histology of resected specimens between Duette™ (DUE) and Captivator™ (CAPT). Efficacy was assessed by R0 and local recurrence (LR) rate. Bleedings, perforations, and strictures were recorded as safety outcomes. Moreover, the specimens were re-examined by two pathologists, blinded about the study group, to assess the maximum thickness of both the whole specimens and the resected submucosal layer. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (38 per group) were included. The two groups did not differ in terms of baseline characteristics. R0 resection was achieved in 96.7% versus 96.3% (p = ns) and LR were recorded in 4/38 (10.5%) versus 3/38 (7.9%) in DUE and CAPT group, respectively (p = ns). Considering Duette™ versus Captivator™, 2 versus 3 patients developed a symptomatic stricture. Only one post-procedural bleeding occurred (Captivator™). Maximum medium thicknesses of specimens and of resected submucosa did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: MBM is safe and effective for resecting visible lesions using either of the two available devices.