4.4 Article

Liquid Nitrogen Spray Cryotherapy is Associated With Less Postprocedural Pain Than Radiofrequency Ablation in Barrett's Esophagus A Multicenter Prospective Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 E84-E90

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000999

关键词

adverse events; dysplasia; ablation; endoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goals and Background: Two common endoscopic therapies for eradication of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus are radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy (LNC). There is no data comparing postprocedural pain. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postprocedural pain between the 2 ablation modalities. Methods: This is a multicenter prospective study in which pain intensity scores and the presence of dysphagia were assessed immediately before and after treatment, 48 hours posttreatment and at 3 weeks posttreatment using validated instruments. Results: Of 94 patients, 35 underwent LNC and 59 underwent RFA [36 with focal radiofrequency ablation (RFA-F) and 23 with circumferential radiofrequency ablation (RFA-C)]. Immediately posttreatment, patients in the LNC group reported an average Numeric Pain Scale score that was lower than in the RFA groups [LNC 0.41 vs. RFA-F 1.18 (P=0.026), LNC 0.41 vs. RFA-C 1.38 (P=0.010)]. These differences persisted at 48 hours posttreatment [LNC 0.76 vs. RFA-F 1.77 (P=0.013), LNC 0.76 vs. RFA-C 1.73 (P=0.018)]. The odds of pain after RFA were at least 5 times greater than after LNC [immediately posttreatment odds ratio, 5.26 (95% confidence interval, 1.85-14.29) and 48 h posttreatment odds ratio, 5.56 (95% confidence interval, 2.27-14.29)]. There was no difference in dysphagia after treatment in either group, at any time point (P=0.429). Conclusion: LNC was associated with less postprocedural pain when compared with RFA. These results help inform patients and physicians about the expected symptoms after ablative endotherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据