“Dry biopsies” with spraying of dilute epinephrine optimize biopsy mapping of long segment Barrett’s esophagus

Background and study aims: For surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus random stepwise four-quadrant biopsy (4QB) is recommended for detecting macroscopically occult neoplasias. Thorough performance of the systematic protocol is commonly hampered by poor visibility due to oozing from biopsy sites. Topical application of dilute epinephrine may prevent bleeding by vasoconstriction of superficial microvessels and might therefore enable ”dry biopsy” sampling. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of spraying dilute epinephrine for optimal 4QB mapping of Barrett’s esophagus.

Patients and methods: In this prospective, double-blind trial 40 patients with known long segment Barrett’s esophagus were randomly allocated to undergo spraying with either dilute epinephrine (1 : 20 000) (epinephrine group; n = 20) or saline (control group; n = 20) before 4QB sampling. During endoscopies patients received continuous monitoring of vital parameters. Endoscopists blinded to randomization assessed visibility scores during biopsy sampling. Additionally, electronically stored images of the Barrett’s esophagus segment after 4QB sampling were evaluated by blinded assessors.

Results: The mean length of Barrett’s segments was 5.5 ± 1.8 cm and the mean number of 4QBs was 12.5 ± 3.6 with no statistically significant differences between control and epinephrine groups. Epinephrine spraying did not affect patients’ vital parameters. Visualization ratings by endoscopists on site and by the assessors of the stored images were significantly better in the epinephrine compared with the control group (P < 0.05). Moreover, epinephrine spraying reduced the time for 4QB sampling (P = 0.015) and the mean number of saline flushes needed to maintain visibility (P = 0.0003).

Conclusions: The novel “dry biopsy” technique with spraying of dilute epinephrine is safe, and facilitates thorough performance of systematic 4QB mapping of Barrett’s esophagus by improvement of visibility.

References

• 1 Haggitt R C, Tryzeaar J, Ellis F H. et al . Adenocarcinoma complicating columnar epithelium-lined (Barrett’s) esophagus.  Am J Cin Pathol. 1978;  70 1-5
• 2 Ishaq S, Jankowski J A. Barrett’s metaplasia: clinical implications.  World J Gastroenterol. 2001;  7 563-565
• 3 Hameeteman W, Tytgat G NJ, Houthoff H J. et al . Barrett’s esophagus: development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma.  Gastroenterology. 1989;  96 1249-1256
• 4 Van Sandick J W, van Lanschot J JB, Kuiken B W. et al . Impact of endoscopic biopsy surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus on pathological stage and clinical outcome of Barrett’s carcinoma.  Gut. 1998;  43 216-222
• 5 Corley D A, Levin T R, Habel L A. et al . Surveillance and survival in Barrett’s adenocarcinomas: a population-based study.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  122 633-640
• 6 Levine D S, Haggitt R C, Blount P L. et al . An endoscopic biopsy protocol can differentiate high-grade dysplasia from early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastroenterology. 1993;  104 40-50
• 7 Wang K K, Sampliner R E. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis. surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;  103 788-797
• 8 Guelrud M, Herrera I, Essenfeld H. et al . Enhanced magnification endoscopy: a new technique to identify specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett‘s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 559-565
• 9 Hoffman A, Kiesslich R, Bender A. et al . Acetic acid-guided biopsies after magnifying endoscopy compared with random biopsies in the detection of Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective randomized trial with crossover design.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 1-8
• 10 Guelrud M, Ehrlich E E. Endoscopic classification of Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 58-65
• 11 Rey J F, Inoue H, Guelrud M. Magnification endoscopy with acetic acid for Barrett’s esophagus.  Endoscopy. 2005;  37 583-586
• 12 Kara M A, Peters F P, Rosmolen W D. et al . High-resolution endoscopy plus chromoendoscopy or narrow-band imaging in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective randomized crossover study.  Endoscopy. 2005;  37 929-936
• 13 Pohl J, May A, Rabenstein T, Pech O. et al . Comparison of computed virtual chromoendoscopy and conventional chromoendoscopy with acetic acid for detection of neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 594-598
• 14 Abela J E, Going J J, Mackenzie J F. et al . Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett’s dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;  103 850-855
• 15 Reid B J, Blount P L, Feng Z. et al . Optimizing endoscopic biopsy detection of early cancers in Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 3089-3095
• 16 Edwards M J, Gable D R, Lentsch A B. et al . The rationale for esophagectomy as the optimal therapy for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia.  Ann Surg. 1996;  223 585-589
• 17 Heitmiller R F, Redmond M, Hamilton S R. Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia.  Ann Surg. 1996;  224 66-71
• 18 Peters J H, Clark G W, Ireland A P. et al . Outcome of adenocarcinoma arising in Barrett’s esophagus in endoscopically surveyed and nonsurveyed patients.  J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;  108 813-821
• 19 Egger K, Werner M, Meining A. et al . Biopsy surveillance is still necessary in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus despite new endoscopic imaging techniques.  Gut. 2003;  52 18-23