Development of a program to train physician extenders to perform transnasal esophagoscopy and screen for Barrett's esophagus

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy for the detection of Barrett's esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis

Conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (cEGD) is currently the gold standard endoscopic procedure for diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE). This procedure is however less suitable for widespread screening because of its invasiveness and costs. An alternative endoscopic procedure is unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, patient tolerability, technical success rate, and safety of uTNE compared with cEGD for detecting BE and related neoplasia. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of uTNE compared with cEGD for detecting BE and related neoplasia. Eight prospective studies were included, in which 623 patients underwent both uTNE and cEGD. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of uTNE for detecting columnar epithelium were 98% (95% CI 83-100%) and 99% (95% CI 82-100%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of uTNE for detecting intestinal metaplasia in biopsies were 89% (95% CI 78-95%) and 93% (95% CI 71-98%), respectively. In three of the six studies that reported patient tolerability, a higher patient tolerability of uTNE compared with cEGD was reported. The technical success rate of uTNE ranged from 89% to 100% and no (serious) adverse events were reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that uTNE is an accurate, safe, and well-tolerated procedure for the detection of columnar epithelium and can be considered as screening modality for BE.

Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.

Novel Screening Alternatives for Barrett Esophagus

Barrett esophagus (BE) is the only known premalignant precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a deadly malignancy that carries a dismal prognosis. Guidelines currently recommend screening for BE only in high-risk populations, such as patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and 1 or more additional risk factors. A GERD-centered approach to BE screening likely leads to a large number of missed EAC cases, as the true population prevalence of BE is thought to be much higher than current estimates. Mass screening for BE has been proposed but is fraught with challenges. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy screening is the current gold standard for BE detection, but it is expensive and cumbersome and carries a small potential for unwanted harms. Transnasal endoscopy is simple, cost-effective, and well tolerated, but it has not found widespread acceptance among physicians and patients. Esophageal capsule endoscopy, despite being well tolerated and accepted, has not been shown to be cost-effective. Newer minimally invasive, nonendoscopic techniques for BE screening have shown promise in prospective clinical trials. Pragmatic head-to-head trials comparing these techniques will help determine the path forward and could herald a new future for population-based BE screening.

Barrett oesophagus

Barrett oesophagus (BE), the only known histological precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), is a condition in which the squamous epithelium of the oesophagus is replaced by columnar epithelium as an adaptive response to gastro-oesophageal reflux. EAC has one of the fastest rising incidences of cancers in Western countries and has a dismal prognosis. BE is usually detected during endoscopic examination, and diagnosis is confirmed by the histological presence of intestinal metaplasia. Advances in genomics and transcriptomics have improved our understanding of the pathogenesis and malignant progression of intestinal metaplasia. As the majority of EAC cases are diagnosed in individuals without a known history of BE, screening for BE could potentially decrease disease-related mortality. Owing to the pre-malignant nature of BE, endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE is imperative for early detection and treatment of dysplasia to prevent further progression to invasive EAC. Developments in endoscopic therapy have resulted in a major shift in the treatment of patients with BE who have dysplasia or early EAC, from surgical resection to endoscopic resection and ablation. In addition to symptom control by optimization of lifestyle and pharmacological therapy with proton pump inhibitors, chemopreventive strategies based on NSAIDs and statins are currently being investigated for BE management.

Endosheath ultrathin transnasal endoscopy is a cost-effective method for screening for Barrett's esophagus in patients with GERD symptoms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening is currently not considered to be cost effective in the general population but may be effective in high-risk subgroups, such as 50-year-old white men with chronic reflux disease (GERD). A new modality for screening is unsedated transnasal endoscopy using endosheath technology (uTNE), which has been shown to be safe and effective in clinical practice. In this study, we determined the cost-utility of uTNE in a high-risk subgroup compared with no screening or screening with standard endoscopy.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate screening of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of GERD with either uTNE or standard endoscopy compared with no screening, over a lifetime horizon. Input variables were based on the literature and recent data on uTNE screening for BE. The study was designed from a healthcare payer perspective by using direct costs. Primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of uTNE and standard endoscopy compared with no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed for several factors, such as prevalence of BE.

RESULTS

Costs of uTNE, standard endoscopy, and no screening were estimated at, $2495, $2957, and $1436, respectively. Compared with no screening, uTNE screening resulted in an overall QALY increase of 0.039 (95% percentile 0.018; 0.063) and an ICUR of $29,446 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.516-53.091), whereas standard endoscopy compared with no screening resulted in a QALY increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.015-0.056) and an ICUR of $47,563 (95% CI, 31,036-82,970).

CONCLUSION

Both uTNE and standard endoscopy seem to be cost-effective screening methods in a screening cohort of 50-year-old white men with GERD at a willingness-to-pay cutoff of $50,000.

Acceptability, Accuracy, and Safety of Disposable Transnasal Capsule Endoscopy for Barrett's Esophagus Screening

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-EGD) is expensive. We assessed the performance of a clinic-based, single use transnasal capsule endoscope (EG Scan II) for the detection of BE, compared to C-EGD as the reference standard.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with and without BE recruited from 3 referral centers (1 in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom). Of 200 consenting participants, 178 (89%) completed both procedures (11% failed EG Scan due to the inability to intubate the nasopharynx). The mean age of participants was 57.9 years and 67% were male. The prevalence of BE was 53%. All subjects underwent the 2 procedures on the same day, performed by blinded endoscopists. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale [VAS]) questionnaires within 14 days of the procedures.

RESULTS

A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan (54.2%) vs the C-EGD (16.7%) (P < .001) and the EG Scan had a higher VAS score (7.2) vs the C-EGD (6.4) (P = .0004). No serious adverse events occurred. The EG Scan identified any length BE with a sensitivity value of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96) and a specificity value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96). The EG Scan identified long segment BE with a sensitivity value of 0.95 and short segment BE with a sensitivity values of 0.87.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study, we found the EG Scan to be safe and to detect BE with higher than 90% sensitivity and specificity. A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan to C-EGD. This device might be used as a clinic-based tool to screen populations at risk for BE. ISRCTN registry identifier: 70595405; ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02066233.

Needs Assessment Survey for Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant Colonoscopists for a Gastroenterology Community of Practice

Demand for colonoscopy exceeds capacity in the Veterans Health Administration and the private sector. A small number of innovative Veterans Affairs and private sector facilities have created colonoscopy-training fellowships for nurse practitioners and physician assistants (nonphysicians). Additionally, a gastroenterology community of practice might provide knowledge sharing and professional networking opportunities for nonphysician colonoscopists based on assessment of their need for professional activities. A critical appraisal of related literature pointed out key motivational and structural elements of communities of practice. The survey draft was reviewed by content experts and piloted by four nurse practitioner colonoscopists. Using snowball sampling, the survey was sent to nonphysician endoscopists to capture training experiences, interest in membership, and identified preferences for the structure and delivery of a community of practice. Although the sample size was small (N = 7), results validated similar training experiences and confirmed strong interest in launching a gastroenterology community of practice.

Recent Advances in Screening for Barrett's Esophagus

OPINION STATEMENT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a pressing need for effective strategies to halt the increase in both the incidence and mortality of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Screening for Barrett's esophagus, which is the only known precursor of EAC, remains a ripe area for research, particularly with regard to identifying the target population, screening tools, and management of screen-detected populations. This review aims to explore in depth the rationale for screening for Barrett's esophagus, recent biotechnological advances which may have the potential of making screening feasible, and also highlight the challenges which will have to be overcome in order make screening for BE a realistic prospect.

RECENT FINDINGS

Imaging techniques such as portable transnasal endoscopy have the advantage of providing an immediate diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus as well as other significant pathologies such as reflux esophagitis and cancer; however, larger studies in non-enriched community screening populations are required to evaluate their feasibility. The capsule sponge is a cell-sampling device coupled with a biomarker, which has been most extensively evaluated with very promising results as regards feasibility, acceptability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. Its effectiveness in increasing the detection of Barrett's esophagus in primary care is currently being evaluated. Several Barrett's esophagus risk prediction scores have been developed with variable degrees of accuracy. Several minimally and non-invasive screening techniques have been studied including imaging and cell-sampling devices. Barrett's risk assessment models need to be further validated in independent, relevant screening populations with clear cut-offs for recommending screening to be defined.

Oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide and is therefore a major global health challenge. The two major subtypes of oesophageal cancer are oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), which are epidemiologically and biologically distinct. OSCC accounts for 90% of all cases of oesophageal cancer globally and is highly prevalent in the East, East Africa and South America. OAC is more common in developed countries than in developing countries. Preneoplastic lesions are identifiable for both OSCC and OAC; these are frequently amenable to endoscopic ablative therapies. Most patients with oesophageal cancer require extensive treatment, including chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy and/or surgical resection. Patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer are treated with palliative chemotherapy; those who are human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive may also benefit from trastuzumab treatment. Immuno-oncology therapies have also shown promising early results in OSCC and OAC. In this Primer, we review state-of-the-art knowledge on the biology and treatment of oesophageal cancer, including screening, endoscopic ablative therapies and emerging molecular targets, and we discuss best practices in chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, surgery and the maintenance of patient quality of life.

Comparative quality assessment of esophageal examination with transnasal and sedated endoscopy

Background Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) may offer a less expensive, mobile alternative to sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for evaluations of reflux related complications. Comparisons of imaging quality by these methods are lacking. Methods Two reviewers evaluated videos of TNE and EGD procedures, performed during a community randomized study comparing endoscopic techniques. Subjects were randomized to EGD, TNE in endoscopy suite, or TNE in mobile research unit. Endoscopic quality was assessed using a validated scoring tool. Results In total, 115 videos (58 EGD, 28 endoscopy suite TNE, and 29 mobile TNE) were reviewed. Overall quality scores for TNE and EGD were excellent without a statistically significant difference (P = 0.30). There were no differences in gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) visualization scores, though EGD scored higher in esophageal passage (P < 0.05) and TNE scored higher in esophageal intubation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in any quality score between mobile TNE and gastrointestinal suite TNE. Conclusion Esophageal assessment with TNE or EGD was comparable in overall quality and GEJ visualization. TNE quality was not affected by procedure location. TNE is a feasible option for endoscopic assessment of reflux complications.

Recent Advances in Non-invasive Esophageal Tissue Sampling

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The costs to society and accuracy of screening for esophageal cancer and other esophageal diseases with standard endoscopy are formidable. As a result, the applicability of endoscopy as a general screening tool has been challenged.

RECENT FINDINGS

To maintain accuracy but reduce the price of endoscopy on society, multiple adjunct or replacement technologies are being developed that are less expensive and more easily applied. These devices include image-enhancing techniques that more reliably identify dysplasia and cancer reducing the need for extensive biopsy sampling during standard endoscopy. They also include ambulatory forms for procuring esophageal imaging including smaller endoscopes and capsule endoscopy. Finally, some of the newer methods either obtain samples of esophageal tissue through bedside maneuvers not requiring endoscopy or retrieve information about mucosal inflammation and function without the need to procure esophageal tissue. There is an exciting future for esophageal diagnosis with tools that will save cost and/or provide greater accuracy and safety for some of the most common esophageal disorders.

The detection of oesophageal varices using a novel, disposable, probe-based transnasal endoscope: a prospective diagnostic pilot study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening for oesophageal varices (OV) using conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-OGD) is invasive and requires costly monitoring, recovery, and decontamination facilities. We aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility, acceptability and accuracy of a novel, portable and disposable office-based transnasal endoscope (EG Scan™ ) compared to C-OGD as the reference standard.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study. Consecutive adult patients with cirrhosis were invited to participate. All subjects underwent the two procedures on the same day performed by two endoscopists in a blinded design. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) questionnaires on day 0 and day 14 post procedures.

RESULTS

Forty-five of 50 patients (90%) completed both interventions. Mean age was 59 years and OV prevalence was 49%. Patients reported higher preference (percentage) and better experience (mean VAS) with EG Scan compared to C-OGD on day 0 (76.5% vs. 23.5%, P < 0.001; 7.8 vs. 6.8, P = 0.058, respectively) and day 14 (77.8% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001; 7.0 vs. 5.5, P = 0.0013 respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of the EG Scan for the diagnosis of any size OV were 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.95), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.56-0.93) respectively. Corresponding values for the diagnosis of clinically significant (medium/large) OV were 0.92 (95% CI 0.62-1.0), 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.0) respectively. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

EG Scan accuracy was higher for the diagnosis of medium/large OV compared to any size OV. Patients' preference and overall experience of the EG Scan was favourable compared to C-OGD 14 days after procedures.

Barrett’s esophagus in 2016: From pathophysiology to treatment

Esophageal complications caused by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include reflux esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus (BE). BE is a premalignant condition with an increased risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The carcinogenic sequence may progress through several steps, from normal esophageal mucosa through BE to EAC. A recent advent of functional esophageal testing (particularly multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring) has helped to improve our knowledge about GERD pathophysiology, including its complications. Those findings (when properly confirmed) might help to predict BE neoplastic progression. Over the last few decades, the incidence of EAC has continued to rise in Western populations. However, only a minority of BE patients develop EAC, opening the debate regarding the cost-effectiveness of current screening/surveillance strategies. Thus, major efforts in clinical and research practice are focused on new methods for optimal risk assessment that can stratify BE patients at low or high risk of developing EAC, which should improve the cost effectiveness of screening/surveillance programs and consequently significantly affect health-care costs. Furthermore, the area of BE therapeutic management is rapidly evolving. Endoscopic eradication therapies have been shown to be effective, and new therapeutic options for BE and EAC have emerged. The aim of the present review article is to highlight the status of screening/surveillance programs and the current progress of BE therapy. Moreover, we discuss the recent introduction of novel esophageal pathophysiological exams that have improved the knowledge of the mechanisms linking GERD to BE.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is among the most common conditions encountered by the gastroenterologist. In this document, the American College of Gastroenterology updates its guidance for the best practices in caring for these patients. These guidelines continue to endorse screening of high-risk patients for BE; however, routine screening is limited to men with reflux symptoms and multiple other risk factors. Acknowledging recent data on the low risk of malignant progression in patients with nondysplastic BE, endoscopic surveillance intervals are attenuated in this population; patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo endoscopic surveillance no more frequently than every 3-5 years. Neither routine use of biomarker panels nor advanced endoscopic imaging techniques (beyond high-definition endoscopy) is recommended at this time. Endoscopic ablative therapy is recommended for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia, as well as T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma. Based on recent level 1 evidence, endoscopic ablative therapy is also recommended for patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, although endoscopic surveillance continues to be an acceptable alternative. Given the relatively common recurrence of BE after ablation, we suggest postablation endoscopic surveillance intervals. Although many of the recommendations provided are based on weak evidence or expert opinion, this document provides a pragmatic framework for the care of the patient with BE.

Performance characteristics of unsedated ultrathin video endoscopy in the assessment of the upper GI tract: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Reports on the performance of unsedated ultrathin endoscopy via the transnasal (uTNE) and transoral (uTOE) routes are conflicting. We aimed to estimate the technical success rate, patient preference, and acceptability of uTNE and uTOE alone and in comparison with conventional EGD (cEGD; with or without sedation).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on all primary studies reporting the outcomes of interest. Electronic databases (Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched on February 1, 2014.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria with 6659 patients in total. The pooled technical success rate was 94.0% for uTNE (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.6-95.8; 30 studies) and 97.8% for uTOE (95% CI, 95.6-98.9; 16 studies). The difference in proportion of success for uTNE compared with cEGD was -2.0% (95% CI, -4.0 to -1.0; 18 studies), but that difference was not significant when uTNE < 5.9 mm in diameter was used (-1.0%; 95% CI, -3.0 to .0; 9 studies). There was no significant difference in success rate between uTOE and cEGD (.0%; 95% CI, -1.0 to 2.0; 10 studies). The pooled difference in proportion of patients who preferred uTNE over cEGD was 63.0% (95% CI, 49.0-76.0; 10 studies), whereas preference for uTOE versus cEGD was not significantly different (38.0%; 95% CI, -4.0 to 80.0; 2 studies). Acceptability was high for both uTNE (85.2%; 95% CI, 79.1-89.9; 16 studies) and uTOE (88.7%; 95% CI, 82.4-92.9; 10 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Technical success rate for uTNE < 5.9 mm is equivalent to cEGD. uTNE has high patient acceptability, with better patient preference, and therefore could be a useful alternative to cEGD for screening purposes. uTOE had a similar technical success rate but an equivocal preference to cEGD.

Advances in the management of Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has markedly increased in the United States over the last few decades. Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the most significant known risk factor for this malignancy. Theoretically, screening and treating early BE should help prevent EAC but the exact incidence of BE and its progression to EAC is not entirely known and cost-effectiveness studies for Barrett’s screening are lacking. Over the last few years, there have been major advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis and endoscopic management of BE. These developments focus on early recognition of advanced histology and endoscopic treatment of high-grade dysplasia. Advanced resection techniques now enable us to endoscopically treat early esophageal cancer. In this review, we will discuss these recent advances in diagnosis and treatment of Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Recent developments in pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy of Barrett's esophagus

The burden of illness from esophageal adenocarcinoma continues to rise in the Western world, and overall prognosis is poor. Given that Barrett’s esophagus (BE), a metaplastic change in the esophageal lining is a known cancer precursor, an opportunity to decrease disease development by screening and surveillance might exist. This review examines recent updates in the pathogenesis of BE and comprehensively discusses known risk factors. Diagnostic definitions and challenges are outlined, coupled with an in-depth review of management. Current challenges and potential solutions related to screening and surveillance are discussed. The effectiveness of currently available endoscopic treatment techniques, particularly with regards to recurrence following successful endotherapy and potential chemopreventative agents are also highlighted. The field of BE is rapidly evolving and improved understanding of pathophysiology, combined with emerging methods for screening and surveillance offer hope for future disease burden reduction.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus

There is substantial interest in identifying patients with premalignant conditions such as Barrett's esophagus (BE), to improve outcomes of subjects with esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, there is limited consensus on the rationale for screening, the appropriate target population, and optimal screening modality. Recent progress in the development and validation of minimally invasive tools for BE screening has reinvigorated interest in BE screening. BE risk scores combining clinical, anthropometric, and laboratory variables are being developed that may allow more precise targeting of screening to high-risk individuals. This article reviews and summarizes data on recent progress and challenges in screening for BE.

Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: rationale, recent progress, challenges, and future directions

As the incidence and mortality of esophageal adenocarcinoma continue to increase, strategies to counter this need to be explored. Screening for Barrett's esophagus, which is the known precursor of a large majority of adenocarcinomas, has been debated without a firm consensus. Given evidence for and against perceived benefits of screening, the multitude of challenges in the implementation of such a strategy and in the downstream management of subjects with Barrett's esophagus who could be diagnosed by screening, support for screening has been modest. Recent advances in the form of development and initial accuracy of noninvasive tools for screening, risk assessment tools, and biomarker panels to risk stratify subjects with BE, have spurred renewed interest in the early detection of Barrett's esophagus and related neoplasia, particularly with the advent of effective endoscopic therapy. In this review, we explore in depth the potential rationale for screening for Barrett's esophagus, recent advances that have the potential of making screening feasible, and also highlight some of the challenges that will have to be overcome to develop an effective approach to improve the outcomes of subjects with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett's esophagus screening in the community

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare participation rates and clinical effectiveness of sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) for esophageal assessment and Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a community population. Subjects ≥50 years of age who previously completed validated gastrointestinal symptom questionnaires were randomized (stratified by age, sex, and reflux symptoms) to one of three screening techniques (either sEGD or uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE) or uTNE in a hospital outpatient endoscopy suite (huTNE)) and invited to participate.

RESULTS

Of the 459 subjects, 209 (46%) agreed to participate (muTNE n=76, huTNE n=72, and sEGD n=61). Participation rates were numerically higher in the unsedated arms of muTNE (47.5%) and huTNE (45.7%) compared with the sEGD arm (40.7%), but were not statistically different (P=0.27). Complete evaluation of the esophagus was similar using muTNE (99%), huTNE (96%), and sEGD (100%) techniques (P=0.08). Mean recovery times (min) were longer for sEGD (67.3) compared with muTNE (15.5) and huTNE (18.5) (P<0.001). Approximately 80% of uTNE subjects were willing to undergo the procedure again in future. Respectively, 29% and 7.8% of participating subjects had esophagitis and BE.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile van and clinic uTNE screening had comparable clinical effectiveness with similar participation rates and safety profile to sEGD. Evaluation time with uTNE was significantly shorter. Prevalence of BE and esophagitis in community subjects ≥50 years of age was substantial. Mobile and outpatient unsedated techniques may provide an effective alternative strategy to sEGD for esophageal assessment and BE screening.

Comparative acceptability of transnasal esophagoscopy and esophageal capsule esophagoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial in veterans

BACKGROUND

EGD screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is costly, with insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To compare acceptance and tolerability of 2 novel, office-based, endoscopic screening techniques done on nonsedated patients.

DESIGN

Randomized block study design with allocation concealment.

SETTING

Outpatient clinic setting at a Veterans Affairs medical center.

PATIENTS

A total of 184 veterans with or without GERD symptoms.

INTERVENTIONS

Transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) or esophageal capsule esophagoscopy (ECE).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Acceptance and tolerability of TNE and ECE and effectiveness of BE screening.

RESULTS

Esophageal screening was accepted by 184 of 1210 (15.2%) veterans. The majority were men (96%) and African American (58%), with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 58.9 (± 8.1) years. Five TNE participants (5%) and 2 ECE participants (2%) refused the assigned procedure after randomization (P = .25). Eleven patients (12.6%) randomized to TNE crossed the minimal clinically important threshold for overall procedure tolerability, as opposed to no patients randomized to ECE (P = .001). Effectiveness of BE screening was not significantly different in both procedures (TNE vs ECE = 3.2% vs 5.4%; P = .47). Overall, BE was present in 8 of 75 white participants (10.6%) and in 0 of 107 African American participants (P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

The general veteran population may not reflect the screening population for BE.

CONCLUSION

Despite a small proportion of veterans expressing interest in esophageal screening, both TNE and ECE were feasible in the outpatient clinic setting and were accepted by >95% of participants who did express an interest. Screening was effective only in white participants. Moderate differences in tolerability between TNE and ECE notwithstanding, cost considerations along with availability of equipment and trained personnel should guide the modality to be used for BE screening.