Adherence to guideline recommendations for Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance endoscopies: Effects of dedicated BE endoscopy lists

• Published in: Endoscopy International Open Vol. 11; no. 10; pp. E952 - E962
• Main Authors: Beaufort, I.N., Milne, A.N., Alderlieste, Y.A., Baars, J.E., Bos, P.R., Burger, J.P.W., van Heel, N.C.M., Ledeboer, M., Lieverse, R.J., van de Meeberg, P.C., Meeuse, J.J., Naber, A.H.J., Pullens, H.J.M., Scheffer, R.C.H., Sikkema, M., Verbeek, R.E., Verhagen, M.A.M.T., van de Vrie, W., Willems, M., Weusten, B.L.A.M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany Georg Thieme Verlag KG 01.10.2023
• Subjects: Barrett's and adenocarcinoma; Diagnosis and imaging (inc chromoendoscopy, NBI, iSCAN, FICE, CLE); Endoscopy Upper GI Tract; Original article; Reflux disease
• ISSN: 2364-3722; 2196-9736
• DOI: 10.1055/a-2125-0161

Abstract Background and study aims For non-dysplastic Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) patients, guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance every 3 to 5 years with four-quadrant random biopsies every 2 cm of BE length. Adherence to these guidelines is low in clinical practice. Pooling BE surveillance endoscopies on dedicated endoscopy lists performed by dedicated endoscopists could possibly enhance guideline adherence, detection of visible lesions, and dysplasia detection rates (DDRs). Patients and methods Data were used from the ACID-study (Netherlands Trial Registry NL8214), a prospective trial of BE surveillance in the Netherlands. BE patients with known or previously treated dysplasia were excluded. Guideline adherence, detection of visible lesions, and DDRs were compared for patients on dedicated and general endoscopy lists. Results A total of 1,244 patients were included, 318 on dedicated lists and 926 on general lists. Endoscopies on dedicated lists showed significantly higher adherence to the random biopsy protocol (85% vs. 66%, P <0.01) and recommended surveillance intervals (60% vs. 47%, P <0.01) compared to general lists. Detection of visible lesions (8.8% vs. 8.1%, P=0.79) and DDRs were not significantly different (6.9% and 6.6%, P=0.94). None (0.0%) of the patients scheduled on dedicated lists and 10 (1.1%) on general lists were diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma (P=0.07). In multivariable analysis, dedicated lists were significantly associated with biopsy protocol adherence and adherence to surveillance interval recommendations with odds ratios of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07–9.57) and 1.64 (95% CI 1.03–2.61), respectively. Conclusions Dedicated endoscopy lists are associated with better adherence to the random biopsy protocol and surveillance interval recommendations.