Comparison of Cap-Assisted vs Conventional Endoscopic Technique for Management of Food Bolus Impaction in the Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: "Push" or "pull" techniques with the use of snares, forceps, baskets, and grasping devices are conventionally used to manage esophageal food bolus impaction (FBI). A novel cap-assisted technique has recently been advocated to reduce time taken for food bolus (FB) removal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the cap-assisted technique against conventional methods of esophageal FB removal in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with esophageal FBI requiring endoscopic removal, from 3 Australian tertiary hospitals between 2017 and 2019, were randomized to either the cap-assisted technique or the conventional technique. Primary outcomes were technical success and FB retrieval time. Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, en bloc removal rate, procedure-related complication, length of hospital stay, and cost of consumables. RESULTS: Over 24 months, 342 patients with esophageal FBI were randomized to a cap-assisted (n = 171) or conventional (n = 171) technique. Compared with the conventional approach, the cap-assisted technique was associated with (i) shorter FB retrieval time (4.5 ± 0.5 minutes vs 21.7 ± 0.9 minutes, P < 0.001), (ii) shorter total procedure time (23.0 ± 0.6 minutes vs 47.0 ± 1.3 minutes, P < 0.0001), (iii) higher technical success rate (170/171 vs 160/171, P < 0.001), (iv) higher rate of en bloc removal (159/171 vs 48/171, P < 0.001), and (v) lower rate of procedure-related mucosal tear and bleeding (0/171 vs 13/171, P < 0.001). There were no major adverse events or deaths within 30 days in either group. The total cost of consumables was higher in the conventional group (A$19,644.90 vs A$6,239.90). DISCUSSION: This multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed that the cap-assisted technique is more effective and less costly than the conventional approach and should be first-line treatment for esophageal FBI.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Endoscopic Screening for Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer in High-Risk Areas in China.

Importance: Upper gastrointestinal tract cancer, including esophageal and gastric cancers, in China accounts for 50% of the global burden. Endoscopic screening may be associated with a decreased incidence of and mortality from upper gastrointestinal tract cancer. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening for esophageal and gastric cancers among people aged 40 to 69 years in areas of China where the risk of these cancers is high. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was constructed for initial screening at different ages from a health care system perspective, and 5 endoscopic screening strategies with different frequencies (once per lifetime and every 10 years, 5 years, 3 years, and 2 years) were evaluated. The study was conducted between January 1, 2019, and October 31, 2020. Model parameters were estimated based on this project, government documents, and published literature. For each initial screening age (40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, and 65-69 years), a closed cohort of 100 000 participants was assumed to enter the model and follow the alternative strategies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-effectiveness was measured by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the willingness-to-pay threshold was assumed to be 3 times the per capita gross domestic product in China (US $10 276). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of model findings. Results: The study included a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 individuals aged 40 to 69 years. All 5 screening strategies were associated with improved effectiveness by 1087 to 10 362 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and increased costs by US $3 299 000 to $22 826 000 compared with no screening over a lifetime, leading to ICERs of US $1343 to $3035 per QALY. Screening at a higher frequency was associated with an increase in QALYs and costs; ICERs for higher frequency screening compared with the next-lower frequency screening were between US $1087 and $4511 per QALY. Screening every 2 years would be the most cost-effective strategy, with probabilities of 90% to 98% at 3 times the per capita gross domestic product of China. The model was the most sensitive to utility scores of esophageal cancer- or gastric cancer-related health states and compliance with screening. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that combined endoscopic screening for esophageal and gastric cancers may be cost-effective in areas of China where the risk of these cancers is high; screening every 2 years would be the optimal strategy. These data may be useful for development of policies targeting the prevention and control of upper gastrointestinal tract cancer in China.

The Optimal Age to Stop Endoscopic Surveillance of Patients With Barrett's Esophagus Based on Sex and Comorbidity: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend surveillance for patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) but do not include a recommended age for discontinuing surveillance. This study aimed to determine the optimal age for last surveillance of NDBE patients stratified by sex and level of comorbidity. METHODS: We used 3 independently developed models to simulate patients diagnosed with NDBE, varying in age, sex, and comorbidity level (no, mild, moderate, and severe). All patients had received regular surveillance until their current age. We calculated incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from 1 additional endoscopic surveillance at the current age versus not performing surveillance at that age. We determined the optimal age to end surveillance as the age at which incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1 more surveillance was just less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. RESULTS: The benefit of having 1 more surveillance endoscopy strongly depended on age, sex, and comorbidity. For men with NDBE and severe comorbidity, 1 additional surveillance at age 80 years provided 4 more QALYs per 1000 patients with BE at an additional cost of $1.2 million, whereas for women with severe comorbidity the benefit at that age was 7 QALYs at a cost of $1.3 million. For men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity, the optimal ages of last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years, respectively. For women, these ages were younger: 75, 73, 73, and 69 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative modeling analysis illustrates the importance of considering comorbidity status and sex when deciding on the age to discontinue surveillance in patients with NDBE.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening, Surveillance, and Endoscopic Eradication Therapies for Managing the Burden of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

The authors conducted a review of the literature of cost-effectiveness analyses regarding management of Barrett's esophagus, including screening, surveillance, and treatment strategies. Because of the presence of multiple systematic reviews on this topic, they chose to focus on more recent economic analyses, with an emphasis on comparative modeling because these analyses have been demonstrated to achieve greater validity and impact when there are multiple competing strategies that are clinically reasonable to pursue. The authors identified areas of consensus across studies regarding management strategies and also areas that require additional empirical data.

Age at Initiation and Frequency of Screening to Prevent Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in High-risk Regions: an Economic Evaluation.

The aim of this study was to identify the economic screening strategies for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in high-risk regions. We used a validated ESCC health policy model for comparing different screening strategies for ESCC. Strategies varied in terms of age at initiation and frequency of screening. Model inputs were derived from parameter calibration and published literature. We estimated the effects of each strategy on the incidence of ESCC, costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Compared with no screening, all competing screening strategies decreased the incidence of ESCC from 0.35% to 72.8%, and augmented the number of QALYs (0.002-0.086 QALYs per person) over a lifetime horizon. The screening strategies initiating at 40 years of age and repeated every 1-3 years, which gained over 70% of probabilities that was preferred in probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a $1,151/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Results were sensitive to the parameters related to the risks of developing basal cell hyperplasia/mild dysplasia. Endoscopy screening initiating at 40 years of age and repeated every 1-3 years could substantially reduce the disease burden and is cost-effective for the general population in high-risk regions.

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: endoscopic suturing to prevent stent migration for benign esophageal disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Reimbursement often presents a significant barrier to widespread adoption of innovative endoscopic devices. We aimed to determine the value (defined as cost savings to a payer) of endoscopic suturing devices in preventing the migration of esophageal stents placed for benign esophageal diseases. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed from a payer perspective evaluating fully covered metal stent placement for benign esophageal diseases (fistula, leak, perforation, or stricture) in a hospital outpatient setting. The model compared 2 strategies: endoscopic suturing to anchor the stent or no suture. Health care outcomes and costs were derived from published systematic reviews and national databases (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience [MAUDE] for safety data; 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Provider Utilization and Payment Data databases for reimbursement data). RESULTS: From a payer perspective, reimbursement for care increased by US$1487.98 without endoscopic suturing per patient, compared with US$621.06 with endoscopic suturing, to cover the risk of stent migration in addition to usual professional and facility reimbursement for stent placement. Thus, an average cost saving of US$866.92 per patient was achieved with endoscopic suturing to reduce stent migration risks. Cost savings associated with suturing ranged from US$147.48 to US$1586.36 per patient, based on the indication for the procedure in sensitivity analysis. Cost savings increased with higher rates of technical success in suture placement. CONCLUSIONS: Creating a defined reimbursement pathway for endoscopic suture fixation of a stent for the treatment of benign esophageal diseases appears to be justified from a payer perspective.

Advanced imaging in surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Esophageal cancer is on the rise. The known precursor lesion is Barrett's esophagus (BE). Patients with dysplasia are at higher risk of developing esophageal cancer. Currently the gold standard for surveillance endoscopy involves taking targeted biopsies of abnormal areas as well as random biopsies every 1-2 cm of the length of the Barrett's. Unfortunately studies have shown that this surveillance can miss dysplasia and cancer. Advanced imaging technologies have been developed that may help detect dysplasia in BE. This opinion review discusses advanced imaging in BE surveillance endoscopy and its utility in clinical practice.

Economic value of narrow-band imaging versus white light endoscopy for the diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: Cost-consequence model.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an abnormality arising from gastroesophageal reflux disease that can progressively evolve into a sequence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Progression of Barrett's esophagus into dysplasia is monitored with endoscopic surveillance. The current surveillance standard requests random biopsies plus targeted biopsies of suspicious lesions under white-light endoscopy, known as the Seattle protocol. Recently, published evidence has shown that narrow-band imaging (NBI) can guide targeted biopsies to identify dysplasia and reduce the need for random biopsies. We aimed to assess the health economic implications of adopting NBI-guided targeted biopsy vs. the Seattle protocol from a National Health Service England perspective. A decision tree model was developed to undertake a cost-consequence analysis. The model estimated total costs (i.e. staff and overheads; histopathology; adverse events; capital equipment) and clinical implications of monitoring a cohort of patients with known/suspected BE, on an annual basis. In the simulation, BE patients (N = 161,657 at Year 1; estimated annual increase: +20%) entered the model every year and underwent esophageal endoscopy. After 7 years, the adoption of NBI with targeted biopsies resulted in cost reduction of £458.0 mln vs. HD-WLE with random biopsies (overall costs: £1,966.2 mln and £2,424.2 mln, respectively). The incremental investment on capital equipment to upgrade hospitals with NBI (+£68.3 mln) was offset by savings due to the reduction of histological examinations (-£505.2 mln). Reduction of biopsies also determined savings for avoided adverse events (-£21.1 mln). In the base-case analysis, the two techniques had the same accuracy (number of correctly identified cases: 1.934 mln), but NBI was safer than HD-WLE. Budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses confirmed the findings of the cost-consequence analysis. In conclusion, NBI-guided targeted biopsies was a cost-saving strategy for NHS England, compared to current practice for detection of dysplasia in patients with BE, whilst maintaining at least comparable health outcomes for patients.

Evaluation of the medical economics and safety: two methods for the endoscopic removal of jujube pits

Objective: to evaluate the medical economics and safety of two methods for the endoscopic removal of jujube pits, one with a transparent cap combined with a stone basket and the other with a transparent cap combined with foreign body forceps. Methods: consecutive patients with a suspected jujube pit ingestion in the esophagus between January 2008 and December 2017 were enrolled into the study. Fifty-three patients who met the criteria were divided into two groups. Group A patients were treated by a transparent cap combined with a stone basket and group B patients were treated by a transparent cap combined with foreign body forceps. The following clinical data were collected: age, sex, location of jujube pits, complications, operation time, extraction success and average hospital costs. Results: a total of 53 patients who met the criteria were enrolled into the study; 29 cases in group A and 24 cases in group B. Endoscopic removal was successful in 98.1% (52/53) of the patients and the remaining 1.9% (1/53) required surgery. Severe complications were less frequent in group A than in group B (p = 0.017). Surgery time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.647). The extraction success in group A was higher than in group B (p = 0.001). The medical costs including the total cost, inspection, treatment, radiation and drug cost were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05 in all cases). Conclusion: endoscopic baskets are suitable for cases of jujube pit ingestion and have a higher extraction success and a lower proportion of severe complications. Surgery time was not significantly extended and the medical costs did not increase

No disponible

Estimation of Cost for Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in a High-Risk Population in Rural China: Results from a Population-Level Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Population-level endoscopic screening for esophageal cancer has been conducted in China for years. In this study, we aim to provide an updated and precise cost estimation for esophageal cancer screening based on a randomized controlled trial in a high-risk area in China. METHODS: We estimated the cost of esophageal cancer screening with chromoendoscopy using a micro-costing approach based on primary data of the ESECC (Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in China) randomized controlled trial (NCT01688908) from a health sector perspective. Unit costs and quantities of resources were collected to obtain annual screening costs. The screening project was then theoretically expanded to a 10-year period to explore long-term trends of costs. Costs were adjusted to US dollars for the year 2018. RESULTS: In the ESECC trial, screening cost per endoscopy with a valid pathologic diagnosis was $196, accounting for 3.82% of the gross domestic product per capita in Hua County, and the costs for detecting one esophageal cancer and one early-stage esophageal cancer were $26,347 and $37,687, respectively. In conventional screening in which protocol-driven costs were excluded, costs as above were $134, $18,074, and $25,853. The cost for detecting one gastric cardia cancer or stomach cancer was nine times higher than detecting one esophageal cancer owing to low prevalences of the two cancers. In a simulated 10-year screening project, annual cost decreased notably over time. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively low absolute cost, population-level endoscopic screening will still be a heavy burden on local government considering the socioeconomic conditions. Long-lasting programs would be less costly and population-level screening would make little sense in non-high-risk regions.

Transnasal Endoscopy in Unsedated Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Using Virtual Reality Video Goggles.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Evaluation and treatment of children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires serial endoscopic, visual, and histologic assessment by sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (TNE) was reported to be successful in a pilot study of children. We evaluated video goggle and virtual reality-based unsedated TNE in children with EoE, collecting data on rates of completion, adverse events, and adequacy of visual and histologic findings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 190 children and young adults (age, 3-22 y) who underwent video goggle or virtual reality-based unsedated TNE from January 2015 through February 2018. We analyzed data on patient demographics, procedure completion, endoscope type, adverse events, visual and histologic findings, estimated costs, and duration in the facility. Esophageal biopsies from the first 173 subjects who underwent TNE were compared with those from previous EGD evaluations. RESULTS: During 300 attempts, 294 TNEs were performed (98% rate of success). Fifty-four patients (age, 6-18 y) underwent multiple TNEs for dietary or medical management of EoE. There were no significant adverse events. Visual and histologic findings were adequate for assessment of EoE. TNE reduced costs by 53.4% compared with EGD (TNE $4393.00 vs EGD $9444.33). TNE was used increasingly from 2015 through 2017, comprising 31.8% of endoscopies performed for EoE. The total time spent in the clinic (front desk check-in to check-out) in 2018 was 71 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study of 190 children and young adults (age, 3-22 y) who underwent video goggle or virtual reality-based unsedated TNE, TNE was safe and effective and reduced costs of EoE monitoring. Advantages of TNE include reduced risk and cost associated with anesthesia as well as decreased in-office time, which is of particular relevance for patients with EoE, who require serial EGDs.

Cost analysis of office-based transnasal esophagoscopy.

PURPOSE: Although office-based transnasal esophagoscopy has been investigated extensively, a cost analysis is still lacking. We performed a cost analysis combined with feasibility study for two diagnostic processes: patients with globus pharyngeus and/or dysphagia, and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. RESULTS: Forty-one procedures were performed, of which 35 were fully completed. The procedure was well tolerated with mild complaints such as nasal or pharyngeal pain and burping. Four complications occurred: two minor epistaxis and two vasovagal reactions. In patients with globus pharyngeus and/or dysphagia, transnasal esophagoscopy resulted in a cost saving of €94.43 (p 0.026) per procedure, compared to our regular diagnostic process. In patients with suspicion of hypopharyngeal carcinoma, cost savings were €831.41 (p 0.000) per case. CONCLUSIONS: Cost analysis showed that office-based transnasal esophagoscopy can provide significant cost savings for the current standard of care. Furthermore, this procedure resulted in good patient acceptability and few complications.

Endoscopic therapy and surveillance versus esophagectomy for early esophageal adenocarcinoma: A review of early outcomes and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy is considered to be comparable to esophagectomy with respect to oncologic outcomes in early (cT1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EC). The current study aims to compare early outcomes and financial costs, associated with endoscopic versus surgical therapy for early esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing either endoscopic or surgical therapy for cT1 EC between 2010 and 2015. RESULTS: Age, BMI, and Charlson Comorbidity Scores were similar in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy (N = 20) and esophagectomy (N = 23). For patients undergoing endoscopic therapy a median of 6 endoscopic interventions, were performed per patient (range 2-18). Esophagectomy was associated with a median hospital stay of 9 (8-13) days and greater procedure specific morbidity compared to endoscopic therapy. Costs related to endoscopic therapy were significantly lower compared to esophagectomy ($22,640 vs. $53,849, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic treatment is associated with decreased morbidity and financial costs when compared to esophagectomy.

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.

Preferences for Surveillance of Barrett's Oesophagus: a Discrete Choice Experiment.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus is undertaken to detect dysplasia and early cancer, and to facilitate early intervention. Evidence supporting current practice is of low quality and often influenced by opinion. This study investigated the preferences of patients for surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus in an Australian cohort. METHODS: Four Barrett's oesophagus surveillance characteristics/attributes were evaluated within a discrete choice experiment based on literature and expert opinion: (1) surveillance method (endoscopy vs a blood test vs a novel breath test), (2) risk of missing a cancer over a 10-year period, (3) screening interval, and (4) out-of-pocket cost. The data from the discrete choice experiment was analysed within the framework of random utility theory using a mixed logit regression model. RESULTS: The study sample comprised patients (n = 71) undergoing endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus of whom n = 65 completed the discrete choice experiment. The sample was predominantly male (77%) with average age of 65 years. All attributes except surveillance method significantly influenced respondents' preference for Barrett's oesophagus surveillance. Policy analyses suggested that compared to the reference case (i.e. endoscopy provided annually at no upfront cost and with a 4% risk of missing cancer), increasing test sensitivity to 0.5% risk of missing cancer would increase participation by up to 50%; surveillance every 5 years would lead to 26% reduction, while every 3 to 3.5 years would result in 7% increase in participation. Respondents were highly averse to paying A$500 for the test, resulting in 48% reduction in participation. None of the other surveillance methods was preferred to endoscopy, both resulting in 11% reduction in participation. CONCLUSION: Test sensitivity, test frequency and out-of-pocket cost were the key factors influencing surveillance uptake. Patients prefer a test with the highest sensitivity, offered frequently, that incurs no upfront costs.

Evaluation of the medical economics and safety: two methods for the endoscopic removal of jujube pits.

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the medical economics and safety of two methods for the endoscopic removal of jujube pits, one with a transparent cap combined with a stone basket and the other with a transparent cap combined with foreign body forceps. METHODS: consecutive patients with a suspected jujube pit ingestion in the esophagus between January 2008 and December 2017 were enrolled into the study. Fifty-three patients who met the criteria were divided into two groups. Group A patients were treated by a transparent cap combined with a stone basket and group B patients were treated by a transparent cap combined with foreign body forceps. The following clinical data were collected: age, sex, location of jujube pits, complications, operation time, extraction success and average hospital costs. RESULTS: a total of 53 patients who met the criteria were enrolled into the study; 29 cases in group A and 24 cases in group B. Endoscopic removal was successful in 98.1% (52/53) of the patients and the remaining 1.9% (1/53) required surgery. Severe complications were less frequent in group A than in group B (p = 0.017). Surgery time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.647). The extraction success in group A was higher than in group B (p = 0.001). The medical costs including the total cost, inspection, treatment, radiation and drug cost were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05 in all cases). CONCLUSION: endoscopic baskets are suitable for cases of jujube pit ingestion and have a higher extraction success and a lower proportion of severe complications. Surgery time was not significantly extended and the medical costs did not increase.

Whose patient is it? The path to multidisciplinary management of achalasia.

In the past decade, the introduction of high-resolution manometry and the classification of achalasia into subtypes has made possible to accurately diagnose the disease and predict the response to treatment for its different subtypes. However, even to date, in an era of exponential medical progress and increased insight in disease mechanisms, treatment of patients with achalasia is still rather simplistic and mostly confined to mechanical disruption of the lower esophageal sphincter by different means. In addition, there is partial consensus on what is the best form of available treatments for patients with achalasia. Herein, we provide a comprehensive outlook to a general approach to the patient with suspected achalasia by: 1) defining the modern evaluation process; 2) describing the diagnostic value of high-resolution manometry and the Chicago Classification in predicting treatment outcomes and 3) discussing the available treatment options, considering the patient conditions, alternatives available to both the surgeon and the gastroenterologist, and the burden to the health care system. It is our hope that such discussion will contribute to value-based management of achalasia through promoting a leaner clinical flow of patients at all points of care.

How to get the most out of costly Barrett's oesophagus surveillance.

Current endoscopic surveillance protocols for Barrett's oesophagus have several limitations, mainly the poor cost-effectiveness and high miss rate. However, there is sufficient evidence that patients enrolled in a surveillance program have better survival chances of oesophageal cancer due to earlier tumor stages at diagnosis compared to patients with de novo diagnosed oesophagus cancer. Risk stratifications aim to identify patients at highest risk of developing adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus; most of them base on the length of the Barrett's segment and the presence of dysplasia. This review discusses prognostic factors and provides practical guidance on how to improve the efficacy and outcome in Barrett's surveillance programs.

Transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy in esophageal varices: a randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic treatment is widely accepted as the first-line therapy selection for esophageal variceal bleeding. Nevertheless, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy requires experienced endoscopists and is associated with a high risk of bleeding. Our study evaluates the feasibility and efficacy of transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy in the management of esophageal varices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized-controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary referral center from April 2015 to May 2016. Patients who received endoscopic sclerotherapy were randomized in a blinded manner into two groups: the transparent cap-assisted group (n=59) and the control group (n=61). RESULTS: The average injection sites were reduced in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with the control group (1.2±0.4 vs. 1.4±0.05, P=0.000), whereas no difference was observed in the dosage of lauromacrogol (16.97±4.91 vs. 16.85±4.57, P=0.662) and the hemorrhage that occurred during injection made no difference (50.8 vs. 61.0%, P=0.276); yet, salvage hemostasis methods were used in only nine patients in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with 17 patients in the control group (25.0 vs. 38.7%, P=0.0936). The cost of each procedure in the cap-assisted group was ¥2578 (1878-4202), whereas it was ¥3691 for the control group (2506-5791) (P=0.023). Moreover, in both groups, no esophageal constriction was observed during the 6-month follow-up period, whereas the rebleeding rate between two groups showed no statistical significance in 6 months (89.8 vs. 93.4%, P=0.563). CONCLUSION: Transparent cap-assisted sclerotherapy provided a clear field of vision and helped to fix the targeted veins, thus significantly reducing the use of the salvage hemostasis method during sclerotherapy injection hemorrhage. It is also associated with reduced injection sites and endoscopic therapy cost.