Pilot randomized crossover study comparing the efficacy of transnasal disposable endosheath with standard endoscopy to detect Barrett’s esophagus

Background and study aims: The transnasal endosheath endoscope is a new disposable technology with potential applicability to the primary care setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transnasal endosheath endoscopy (TEE) for the detection of Barrett’s esophagus, by comparing the diagnostic accuracy of TEE with that of standard endoscopy.

Patients and methods: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study performed in a single tertiary referral center. Consecutive patients undergoing surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus or referred for diagnostic assessment were recruited. All patients were randomized to undergo TEE followed by standard endoscopy or the reverse. Endoscopy experiences and patient preferences were evaluated using a questionnaire. Endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, and optical image quality of both endoscopic procedures, were compared.

Results: A total of 21 of 25 patients completed the study. TEE had sensitivity and specificity of 100 % for an endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, and of 66.7 % and 100 %, respectively, for the histologic diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. The mean optical quality of standard endoscopy was significantly better than that of TEE (7.11 ± 0.42 vs. 4.06 ± 0.27; P < 0.0001). However, following endoscopy, patients reported a significantly better experience with TEE compared with standard endoscopy (7.05 ± 0.49 vs. 4.35 ± 0.53; P = 0.0006), with 60 % preferring TEE and 25 % preferring sedated standard endoscopy.

Conclusions: In this study, TEE had equal accuracy for an endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus compared with standard endoscopy, at the expense of reduced image quality and a lower yield of intestinal metaplasia on biopsy. TEE was better tolerated and preferred by patients. Hence, TEE needs further evaluation in primary care as an initial diagnostic tool.

• References

• 1 Pohl H, Sirovich B, Welch HG. Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence: are we reaching the peak?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 1468-1470
• 2 Eloubeidi MA, Mason AC, Desmond RA et al. Temporal trends (1973-1997) in survival of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma in the United States: a glimmer of hope?. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1627-1633
• 3 Cooper GS, Kou TD, Chak A. Receipt of previous diagnoses and endoscopy and outcome from esophageal adenocarcinoma: a population-based study with temporal trends. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 1356-1362
• 4 Fountoulakis A, Zafirellis KD, Dolan K et al. Effect of surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus on the clinical outcome of oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 997-1003
• 5 Corley DA, Mehtani K, Quesenberry C et al. Impact of endoscopic surveillance on mortality from Barrett’s esophagus-associated esophageal adenocarcinomas. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 312-319
• 6 Bhat SK, McManus DT, Coleman HG et al. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and prior diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus: a population-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 20-25
• 7 Verbeek RE, Leenders M, Ten Kate FJ et al. Surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus and mortality from esophageal adenocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1215-1222
• 8 Dellon ES, Shaheen NJ. Does screening for Barrett’s esophagus and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus prolong survival?. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4478-4482
• 9 Eisen GM, Baron TH, Dominitz JA et al. Complications of upper GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 784-793
• 10 Gora MJ, Sauk JS, Carruth RW et al. Imaging the upper gastrointestinal tract in unsedated patients using tethered capsule endomicroscopy. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 723-725
• 11 Rubenstein JH, Inadomi JM, Brill JV et al. Cost utility of screening for Barrett’s esophagus with esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 312-318
• 12 Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2014; 63: 7-42
• 13 Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF et al. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: e18-e52
• 14 Saeian K, Staff DM, Vasilopoulos S et al. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy accurately detects Barrett’s metaplasia and dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 472-478
• 15 Jobe BA, Hunter JG, Chang EY et al. Office-based unsedated small-caliber endoscopy is equivalent to conventional sedated endoscopy in screening and surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus: a randomized and blinded comparison. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2693-2703
• 16 Shariff MK, Bird-Lieberman EL, O’Donovan M et al. Randomized crossover study comparing efficacy of transnasal endoscopy with that of standard endoscopy to detect Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 954-961
• 17 Nietert PJ, Silverstein MD, Mokhashi MS et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening a population with chronic gastroesophageal reflux. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 311-318
• 18 Dekel R, Wakelin DE, Wendel C et al. Progression or regression of Barrett’s esophagus – is it all in the eye of the beholder?. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2612-2615
• 19 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D et al. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology 2006; 131: 1392-1399
• 20 Meining A, Ott R, Becker I et al. The Munich Barrett follow up study: suspicion of Barrett’s oesophagus based on either endoscopy or histology only – what is the clinical significance?. Gut 2004; 53: 1402-1407
• 21 Levine DS, Haggitt RC, Blount PL et al. An endoscopic biopsy protocol can differentiate high-grade dysplasia from early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 1993; 105: 40-50
• 22 Watson AHR, Shepherd NA. Guidelines for diagnosis and management of Barrett’s columnar-lined oesophagus. 2005 Available from: http://www.bsg.org.uk
• 23 Wildi SM, Wallace MB, Glenn TF et al. Accuracy of esophagoscopy performed by a non-physician endoscopist with a 4-mm diameter battery-powered endoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 305-310
• 24 Catanzaro A, Faulx A, Isenberg GA et al. Prospective evaluation of 4-mm diameter endoscopes for esophagoscopy in sedated and unsedated patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 300-304
• 25 Sorbi D, Gostout CJ, Henry J et al. Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus conventional EGD: a comparative study. Gastroenterology 1999; 117: 1301-1307
• 26 Mokhashi MS, Wildi SM, Glenn TF et al. A prospective, blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin, stand-alone, battery-powered esophagoscope. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2383-2389
• 27 Mayinger B, Strenkert M, Hochberger J et al. Disposable-sheath, flexible gastroscope system versus standard gastroscopes: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 461-467
• 28 Peery AF, Hoppo T, Garman KS et al. Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 945-953
• 29 Catanzaro A, Faulx A, Pfau PR et al. Accuracy of a narrow-diameter battery-powered endoscope in sedated and unsedated patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 484-487
• 30 Bhardwaj A, Hollenbeak CS, Pooran N et al. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of esophageal capsule endoscopy for Barrett’s esophagus in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 1533-1539