Prospective evaluation of a 3.1-mm battery-powered esophagoscope in screening for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

Systematic review with meta-analysis: ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhage from ruptured oesophageal varices is a common cause of death in people with cirrhosis. Guidelines recommend screening for varices at time of cirrhosis diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease. Conventional gastroscopy is the criterion standard for variceal screening; however, is invasive, costly, and carries risks related to use of sedation. Ultra-thin gastroscopy (using endoscopes with a shaft diameter ≤6 mm) has been proposed as an alternative method of variceal screening that mitigates these risks.

AIM

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy for the diagnosis of varices in people with cirrhosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies that evaluated the accuracy of ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

RESULTS

Ten studies, 7 in known cirrhosis, with 752 participants were included in this systematic review. The overall prevalence of oesophageal varices was 42%. On bivariate modelling, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 98% (95% CI 93%-99%) and 96% (95% CI 91%-99%) respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 28 (95% CI 10.7-73.2) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.72) respectively. Kappa coefficient for inter-observer agreement for any varices ranged from 0.45 to 0.90. No serious adverse events related to ultra-thin gastroscopy were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra-thin gastroscopy is accurate in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices, safe and well tolerated. It is a valid alternative to conventional gastroscopy for the screening and surveillance of varices in people with cirrhosis.

Reliability and safety of transnasal compared to conventional endoscopy for detecting oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy may be used for detecting oesophageal varices. However, few studies evaluated feasibility and accuracy of this technique. We aimed to evaluate accuracy, interobserver agreement and safety of the transnasal ultrathin compared to conventional endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included consecutive patients referred for screening or surveillance of oesophageal varices. Patients underwent unsedated transnasal and sedated conventional endoscopies at the same day, which were recorded in a digital video file and randomly analysed by two double-blinded endoscopists. High-risk varices were defined by the presence of large calibre or red wale marks. Accuracy, interobserver agreement and safety of transnasal were compared to conventional endoscopy.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-three cirrhotic patients (48% male, aged of 60 ± 5, 34% Child-Pugh B/C and 71% of cases for variceal screening) were included in the study. The prevalence of oesophageal varices and high-risk oesophageal varices were 59% (n = 79) and 29% (n = 39) respectively. For the presence of oesophageal varices, transnasal GIE yielded sensitivity of 94% [95% Confidence Interval, CI 88-99], specificity of 89% [81-97] as well as positive and negative predictive value of 93% and 91% respectively. A satisfactory interobserver agreement was observed for the presence of oesophageal varices (κ = 0.89) and high-risk varices (κ = 0.65). No serious adverse events were recorded; transnasal GIE was safe and significantly associated with lower rates of hypoxaemia (P < .0001) and hypotension (P < .0001) compared to conventional endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy was safe and had an excellent accuracy and high interobserver agreement for detecting oesophageal varices and for identifying high-risk varices in cirrhotic patients.

Randomized crossover study comparing efficacy of transnasal endoscopy with that of standard endoscopy to detect Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (TNE) may be safer and less expensive than standard endoscopy (SE) for detecting Barrett's esophagus (BE). Emerging technologies require robust evaluation before routine use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and acceptability of TNE in diagnosing BE compared with those of SE.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, crossover study.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

This study enrolled consecutive patients with BE or those referred for diagnostic assessment.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent TNE followed by SE or the reverse. Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory short-form questionnaires, a visual analogue scale, and a single question addressing preference for endoscopy type were administered.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Diagnostic accuracy and tolerability of TNE were compared with those of SE.

RESULTS

Of 95 patients randomized, 82 completed the study. We correctly diagnosed 48 of 49 BE cases by TNE for endoscopic findings of columnar lined esophagus compared with the criterion standard, SE, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 0.98 and 1.00, respectively. The BE median length was 3 cm (interquartile range [IQR] 1-5 cm) with SE and 3 cm (IQR 2-4 cm) with TNE, giving high correlations between the two modalities (R(2) = 0.97; P < .001). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting intestinal metaplasia by TNE compared with those by SE was 0.91 and 1.00, respectively. The mean (± standard deviation) post-endoscopy Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory short-form score for TNE (30.0 ± 1.10 standard error of the mean [SEM]) was lower than that for SE (30.7 ± 1.29 SEM), (P = .054). The visual analogue scale scores were no different (P = .07). The majority of patients (59%) expressed a preference for TNE.

LIMITATIONS

This is a small study, with limited generalizability, a high prevalence of patients with BE, differential drop-out between the two procedures, and use of sedation.

CONCLUSION

TNE is an accurate and well-tolerated method for diagnosing BE compared with SE. TNE warrants further evaluation as a screening tool for BE.

Sedation during upper GI endoscopy in cirrhotic outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with midazolam and fentanyl

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cirrhosis frequently undergo diagnostic or therapeutic upper GI endoscopy (UGIE), and the liver disease might impair the metabolism of drugs usually administered for sedation.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare sedation with a combination of propofol plus fentanyl and midazolam plus fentanyl in cirrhotic outpatients undergoing UGIE.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between February 2008 and February 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy (proportion of complete procedures using the initial proposed sedation scheme), safety (occurrence of sedation-related complications), and recovery time were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten cirrhotic patients referred for UGIE were randomized to 2 groups: midazolam group (0.05 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously) or propofol group (0.25 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously). There were no differences between groups regarding age, sex, weight, etiology of cirrhosis, and Child-Pugh or American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Sedation with propofol was more efficacious (100% vs 88.2%; P < .001) and had a shorter recovery time than sedation with midazolam (16.23 ± 6.84 minutes and 27.40 ± 17.19 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (14% vs 7.3%; P = .172).

LIMITATIONS

Single-blind study; sample size.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation schemes were safe in this setting. Sedation with propofol plus fentanyl was more efficacious with a shorter recovery time compared with midazolam plus fentanyl. Therefore, the former scheme is an alternative when sedating cirrhotic patients undergoing UGIE.

Current staging and diagnosis of gastroesophageal varices

Portal hypertension is defined as an increase in hepatic sinusoidal pressure to 6 mm Hg or higher. Cirrhosis is the most common cause of portal hypertension in the western world and results from increased resistance to blood flow at the hepatic sinusoidal level.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus

Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases the risk for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Because of the rapid rise in incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma, screening for BE with subsequent surveillance when found has been proposed as a method of early detection. Sedated endoscopy, however, is too expensive for wide spread screening. As a result, other techniques including unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy and capsule esophagoscopy have been proposed to expand screening programs.

Esophageal capsule endoscopy vs. EGD for the evaluation of portal hypertension: a French prospective multicenter comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the standard method for the diagnosis of esophago-gastric varices. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to evaluate the PillCam esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) for this indication.

METHODS

Patients presenting with cirrhotic or noncirrhotic portal hypertension underwent ECEfollowed by EGD at the time of diagnosis. Capsule recordings were blindly read by two endoscopists.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients (72 males, mean age: 58 years; mean Child-Pugh score: 7.2) were included. Esophageal varices were detected in 74 patients. No adverse event was observed after either EGD or ECE. Seven (6%) patients were unable to swallow the capsule. The mean recording time was 204 s (range 1-876). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of ECE for the detection of esophageal varices were 77%, 86%, 69%, and 90%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of ECE for the indication of primary prophylaxis (esophageal varices > or = grade 2 and/or red signs) were 77, 88, 90, and 75%, respectively, and 85% of the patients were adequately classified for the indication (or not) of prophylaxis. Interobserver concordance for ECE readings was 79.4% for the diagnosis of varices, 66.4% for the grading of varices, and 89.7% for the indication of prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study confirms the safety and acceptable accuracy of ECE for the evaluation of esophageal varices. ECE might be proposed as an alternative to EGD for the screening of portal hypertension, especially in patients unable or unwilling to undergo EGD.

Esophageal capsule endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy is now considered as the first imaging tool for small bowel examination. Recently, new capsule endoscopy applications have been developed, such as esophageal capsule endoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy. Esophageal capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected esophageal disorders is feasible and safe, and could be also an alternative procedure in those patients refusing upper endoscopy. Although large-scale studies are needed to confirm its utility in GERD and cirrhotic patients, current results are encouraging and open a new era in esophageal examination.

Study comparing oesophageal capsule endoscopy versus EGD in the detection of varices

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic screening and surveillance of cirrhotic patients for oesophageal varices is advocated before initiation of prophylactic therapy for prevention of the first variceal haemorrhage.

AIMS

To compare the diagnostic yield of oesophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) with Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for detecting and grading oesophageal varices and to determine patient tolerance for each procedure.

PATIENTS

Twenty consecutive cirrhotic patients scheduled for EGD were enrolled in the study.

METHODS

Patients underwent ECE followed by EGD. Patients completed a visual analogue scale after each procedure, assessing level of anxiety, pain, overall satisfaction, and willingness to repeat each procedure.

RESULTS

On EGD, 19/20 patients had oesophageal varices. ECE detected varices in 13/19 (68% sensitivity). ECE identified nine out of ten varices rated grade II or higher on EGD. The post-study analogue scale showed a greater level of anxiety before EGD (avg. 2.75/10) versus ECE (avg. 1.5/10).

CONCLUSIONS

ECE may be used in the assessment of EV. It appears to have more discordance with EGD when evaluating smaller varices. The minimal discomfort, lack of sedation, and decreased risk make ECE a possible substitute to EGD in patients unable or unwilling to undergo EGD.

Ultrathin esophagoscopy in screening for Barrett's esophagus at a Veterans Administration Hospital: easy access does not lead to referrals

OBJECTIVE

Unsedated, ultrathin esophagoscopy has been shown to be tolerable, safe, and accurate. Survey data have suggested that accessibility of unsedated esophagoscopy would increase referrals for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening. Our purpose was to evaluate primary-care physician referrals for BE screening when unsedated esophagoscopy is made available.

METHODS

We studied primary-care referrals for unsedated esophagoscopy in a VA internal medicine clinic. Patients over age 45 with chronic heartburn for >5 yr or >3 times weekly and who had no previous EGD were eligible for screening with unsedated esophagoscopy. All primary providers received a 15-min education session on screening. Baseline referral rate was determined retrospectively. Longitudinal data were then collected during three phases of the study: (a) primary provider-initiated referrals, (b) primary provider-initiated referrals with weekly reminders from investigators, and (c) investigator recruitment.

RESULTS

Baseline referral rate averaged 0.5 patients per month. Availability of unsedated esophagoscopy and an education session increased the rate of referral to 0.66 patients per month. Weekly reminders to primary physicians further increased the rate to 1.33 referrals per month. Investigator recruitment produced a rate of 2.67 referrals per month. Of the 77 patients offered screening, 25 (32%) declined. Of the 52 patients screened, three (5.8%) were diagnosed with BE.

CONCLUSIONS

Accessibility of unsedated esophagoscopy itself does not lead to a large increase in the number of primary care referrals for BE screening. Factors that prevent primary care physicians from referring patients for screening need to be identified and effective interventions to change referral patterns need to be implemented for unsedated screening programs to be successful.

Feasibility and safety of string wireless capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of esophageal varices

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, safety, accuracy, and acceptability of "string-capsule endoscopy" in the evaluation of esophageal varices.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Strings were attached to the wireless capsule endoscopy device to allow its controlled movement up and down the esophagus. Time of recording and discomfort associated with the procedure was documented. Patient's preference compared to conventional esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) was recorded. An independent endoscopist blinded to EGD diagnoses assessed the diagnostic accuracy of pictures obtained.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with clinical liver cirrhosis (mean age: 54.4 yr; mean MELD score: 12.5, and mean Child-Pugh score: 6.3) were enrolled; 19 for surveillance and 11 for screening purposes. The procedure was safe (no strings were disrupted and no capsule was lost). The mean recording time was 5.8 min (2.9-8.7), the accuracy 96.7%, and discomfort was minimal. The majority (83.3%) of patients preferred string-capsule endoscopy to EGD.

CONCLUSIONS

String-capsule endoscopy was feasible, safe, accurate, highly acceptable, and preferred by cirrhotic patients undergoing screening/surveillance of esophageal varices. The technique may prove to be more cost effective than conventional EGD.

Unsedated endoscopy

Unsedated endoscopy will likely play an increasingly important role in the daily practice of GI endoscopy. Although there is adequate evidence that un-sedated endoscopy is technically feasible in selected patient populations, there area number of obstacles preventing its widespread adoption. Small-caliber endoscopy is not as accurate as conventional EGD. This may be remedied as improvements in endoscope technology emerge. Many patients refuse to consider an unsedated examination, and those who do participate report more symptoms of discomfort than patients undergoing conventional endoscopy. Whether patients will accept mild discomfort in exchange for substantial cost savings has not been evaluated. Finally, although unsedated endoscopy seems to have a low complication rate, its safety has not been formally addressed in large studies. Large, randomized, controlled studies are needed to better determine the role of un-sedated small-caliber endoscopy in daily practice. Unsedated colonoscopy may follow the footsteps of unsedated upper endoscopy with even more obstacles to overcome before its widespread application.