TY - JOUR
T1 - Cryotherapy for persistent Barrett's esophagus after radiofrequency ablation
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Visrodia, Kavel
AU - Zakko, Liam
AU - Singh, Siddharth
AU - Leggett, Cadman L.
AU - Iyer, Prasad G.
AU - Wang, Kenneth K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2018/6
Y1 - 2018/6
N2 - Background and Aims: A small but significant proportion of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) have persistent dysplasia or intestinal metaplasia (IM) after treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Cryotherapy is a cold-based ablative modality that is increasingly being used in this setting. We aimed to better understand the efficacy of second-line cryotherapy in patients with BE who have persistent dysplasia or IM after RFA by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science through September 1, 2017. Articles were included for meta-analysis based on the following inclusion criteria: ≥5 patients with BE treated with RFA had persistent dysplasia or IM; they subsequently underwent ≥1 session of cryotherapy with follow-up endoscopy; the proportions of patients achieving complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D) and/or IM (CE-IM) were reported. The main outcomes were pooled proportions of CE-D and CE-IM by using a random effects model. Results: Eleven studies making up 148 patients with BE treated with cryotherapy for persistent dysplasia or IM after RFA were included. The pooled proportion of CE-D was 76.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.7-88.0), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 62%). The pooled proportion of CE-IM was 45.9% (95% CI, 32.0-60.5) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 57%). Multiple preplanned subgroup analyses did not sufficiently explain the heterogeneity. Adverse effects were reported in 6.7% of patients. Conclusion: Cryotherapy successfully achieved CE-D in three fourths and CE-IM in half of patients with BE who did not respond to initial RFA. Considering its favorable safety profile, cryotherapy may be a viable second-line option for this therapeutically challenging cohort of patients with BE, but higher-quality studies validating this remain warranted.
AB - Background and Aims: A small but significant proportion of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) have persistent dysplasia or intestinal metaplasia (IM) after treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Cryotherapy is a cold-based ablative modality that is increasingly being used in this setting. We aimed to better understand the efficacy of second-line cryotherapy in patients with BE who have persistent dysplasia or IM after RFA by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science through September 1, 2017. Articles were included for meta-analysis based on the following inclusion criteria: ≥5 patients with BE treated with RFA had persistent dysplasia or IM; they subsequently underwent ≥1 session of cryotherapy with follow-up endoscopy; the proportions of patients achieving complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D) and/or IM (CE-IM) were reported. The main outcomes were pooled proportions of CE-D and CE-IM by using a random effects model. Results: Eleven studies making up 148 patients with BE treated with cryotherapy for persistent dysplasia or IM after RFA were included. The pooled proportion of CE-D was 76.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.7-88.0), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 62%). The pooled proportion of CE-IM was 45.9% (95% CI, 32.0-60.5) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 57%). Multiple preplanned subgroup analyses did not sufficiently explain the heterogeneity. Adverse effects were reported in 6.7% of patients. Conclusion: Cryotherapy successfully achieved CE-D in three fourths and CE-IM in half of patients with BE who did not respond to initial RFA. Considering its favorable safety profile, cryotherapy may be a viable second-line option for this therapeutically challenging cohort of patients with BE, but higher-quality studies validating this remain warranted.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047113509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047113509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.021
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.021
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29476849
AN - SCOPUS:85047113509
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 87
SP - 1396-1404.e1
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 6
ER -