Comparative outcomes of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with different baseline histology

Optimizing Outcomes with Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus: Candidates, Efficacy and Durability

The treatment of early Barrett's esophagus (BE) has undergone a paradigm shift from surgical subtotal esophagectomy to organ-saving endoluminal treatment. Over the past 15 years, several high-quality studies were conducted to assess safe oncological outcome of endoscopic resection of mucosal adenocarcinoma and high-grade dysplasia. It became clear that add-on ablative therapy with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) significantly reduces recurrence risk of neoplasia after resection. In this review, we highlight the most essential elements to optimize outcomes of RFA of BE, addressing the correct indication and patient selection in combination with the most efficient and safest treatment protocols to obtain long-term durability.

Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett's esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway

Background and study aims  The standard radiofrequency ablation (RFA) protocol for Barrett's esophagus (BE) encompasses an intermediary cleaning phase between two ablation sessions. A simplified protocol omitting the cleaning phase is less labor-intensive but equally effective in studies based on single ablation procedures. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of the standard and simplified RFA protocols for the whole treatment pathway for BE, including both circumferential and focal devices. Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients receiving RFA between January 2007 and August 2017 at two institutions. Outcomes assessed were: 1) complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) at 18 months; and 2) rate of esophageal strictures. Results  One hundred forty-five patients were included of whom 73 patients received the standard and 72 patients received the simplified protocol. CR-D was achieved in 94.5 % and 95.8 % of patients receiving the standard and simplified protocol, respectively ( P  = 0.71). CR-IM was achieved in 84.9 % and 77.8 % of patients treated with the standard and simplified protocol, respectively ( P  = 0.27). Strictures were significantly more common among patients who received the simplified protocol (12.5 %) compared to the standard protocol (1.4 %; P  = 0.008). The median number of esophageal dilations was one. Conclusion  The simplified RFA protocol is as effective as the standard protocol in eradicating BE but carries a higher risk of strictures. This needs to be taken into account, particularly in patients with higher pretreatment risk of strictures, such as those with esophageal narrowing from previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).