Comparison of two multiband mucosectomy devices for endoscopic resection of Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia.
Barrett’s esophagus (BE)
Endoscopic mucosal resection
Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)
Multiband mucosectomy (MBM)
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
received:
13
06
2018
accepted:
24
12
2018
pubmed:
24
1
2019
medline:
27
5
2020
entrez:
24
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Esophageal adenocarcinoma carries a poor prognosis and therefore treatment of early neoplasia arising in the precursor condition Barrett's esophagus (BE) is desirable. Visible lesions arising in BE need endoscopic mucosal resection for accurate staging and removal. Resection modalities include a cap-based system with snare and custom-made multiband mucosectomy (MBM) devices (Duette, Cook Medical Ltd). A new MBM device has recently become available (Captivator, Boston Scientific Ltd). A retrospective pilot study to compare the efficacy, safety, specimen size and histology of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) specimens resected with two MBM devices (Cook Duette and Boston Captivator) in treatment naive patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for BE neoplasia. Consecutive EMR procedures carried out by a single experienced endoscopist were analysed. All visible lesions were marked and resected using one of the two MBM devices. All resected specimens were analysed by the same two experienced pathologists. The resected specimens in both groups were analysed for maximum diameter, minimum diameter, surface area and depth. Twenty consecutive patients were analysed (18M + 2F; mean age 74) in the Duette group and 20 (17M + 3F; mean age 72) in the Captivator group. A total of 58 specimens were resected in the Duette and 63 in the Captivator group. Min diameter, max diameter, surface area and depth of the ER specimens resected by the Captivator device were significantly larger than that by the Duette device [min diameter 9.89 mm vs 9.07 mm (p = 0.019); max diameter: 13.54 mm vs 12.38 mm (p = 0.024); surface area: 135.40 mm These two MBM devices showed equivalent efficacy and safety outcomes, but the EMR Captivator device resected specimens with a larger area in the esophagus when compared with the Duette device. A possible advantage of this is in situations where en bloc resections with fewer EMRs are desirable for larger lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Esophageal adenocarcinoma carries a poor prognosis and therefore treatment of early neoplasia arising in the precursor condition Barrett's esophagus (BE) is desirable. Visible lesions arising in BE need endoscopic mucosal resection for accurate staging and removal. Resection modalities include a cap-based system with snare and custom-made multiband mucosectomy (MBM) devices (Duette, Cook Medical Ltd). A new MBM device has recently become available (Captivator, Boston Scientific Ltd).
OBJECTIVES
A retrospective pilot study to compare the efficacy, safety, specimen size and histology of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) specimens resected with two MBM devices (Cook Duette and Boston Captivator) in treatment naive patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for BE neoplasia.
METHODS
Consecutive EMR procedures carried out by a single experienced endoscopist were analysed. All visible lesions were marked and resected using one of the two MBM devices. All resected specimens were analysed by the same two experienced pathologists. The resected specimens in both groups were analysed for maximum diameter, minimum diameter, surface area and depth.
RESULTS
Twenty consecutive patients were analysed (18M + 2F; mean age 74) in the Duette group and 20 (17M + 3F; mean age 72) in the Captivator group. A total of 58 specimens were resected in the Duette and 63 in the Captivator group. Min diameter, max diameter, surface area and depth of the ER specimens resected by the Captivator device were significantly larger than that by the Duette device [min diameter 9.89 mm vs 9.07 mm (p = 0.019); max diameter: 13.54 mm vs 12.38 mm (p = 0.024); surface area: 135.40 mm
CONCLUSIONS
These two MBM devices showed equivalent efficacy and safety outcomes, but the EMR Captivator device resected specimens with a larger area in the esophagus when compared with the Duette device. A possible advantage of this is in situations where en bloc resections with fewer EMRs are desirable for larger lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30671663
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-06655-0
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-06655-0
pmc: PMC6795619
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3665-3672Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75(2):236-41
pubmed: 22248595
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jul;74(1):35-43
pubmed: 21704807
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec;58(6 Suppl):S3-43
pubmed: 14652541
Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb;30(2):471-479
pubmed: 26017906
Am J Surg. 2006 Feb;191(2):250-4
pubmed: 16442955
Gastroenterology. 2007 Apr;132(4):1226-33
pubmed: 17408660
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 6;103(13):1049-57
pubmed: 21680910
Endoscopy. 2011 Mar;43(3):177-83
pubmed: 21365511
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Apr;61(4):506-14
pubmed: 15812401
Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Oct;83(10):1087-94
pubmed: 18828967
Gastroenterology. 2014 Mar;146(3):652-660.e1
pubmed: 24269290
Gut. 2015 Aug;64(8):1192-9
pubmed: 25539672
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar;52(3):210-216
pubmed: 28134635
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Mar;85(3):482-495.e4
pubmed: 27670227
Endoscopy. 2017 Feb;49(2):191-198
pubmed: 28122386
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Feb;57(2):242-6
pubmed: 12556795
Gut. 2014 Jan;63(1):7-42
pubmed: 24165758
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Jan;8(1):23-9
pubmed: 19602454
Gastrointest Endosc. 1993 Jan-Feb;39(1):58-62
pubmed: 8454147
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007 Spring;19(1):72-8
pubmed: 17403461
Am J Gastroenterol. 1993 Nov;88(11):1832-6
pubmed: 8237928
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 May;85(5):889-903
pubmed: 28109913
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Apr;19(4):311-5
pubmed: 17353695
Ann Thorac Surg. 2009 Jun;87(6):1993-2002
pubmed: 19463651
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Jun;11(6):630-5; quiz e45
pubmed: 23357492
Med Clin North Am. 2002 Nov;86(6):1423-45, vii
pubmed: 12510459