TY - JOUR
T1 - Adverse Events After Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
AU - Qumseya, Bashar J.
AU - Wani, Sachin
AU - Desai, Madhav
AU - Qumseya, Amira
AU - Bain, Paul
AU - Sharma, Prateek
AU - Wolfsen, Herbert
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - Background & Aims Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is routinely used for treatment of Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. Despite the relative safety of this method, there have been imprecise estimates of the rate of adverse events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the rate of adverse events associated with RFA with and without EMR. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central through October 22, 2014. The primary outcome of interest was the overall rate of adverse events after RFA with or without EMR. We used forest plots to contrast effect sizes among studies. Results Of 1521 articles assessed, 37 met our inclusion criteria (comprising 9200 patients). The pooled rate of all adverse events from RFA with or without EMR was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%–11.9%); 5.6% of patients developed strictures (95% CI, 4.2%–7.4%), 1% had bleeding (95% CI, 0.8%–1.3%), and 0.6% developed a perforation (95% CI, 0.4%–0.9%). In studies that compared RFA with vs without EMR, the relative risk for adverse events was significantly higher for RFA with EMR (4.4) (P = .015). There was a trend toward higher proportions of adverse events in prospective studies compared with retrospective studies (11.3% vs 7.8%, P = .20). Other factors associated with adverse events included Barrett's esophagus and length and baseline histology. Conclusions In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found the relative risk for adverse events from RFA to be about 4-fold higher with EMR than without; we identified factors associated with these events. Endoscopists should discuss these risks with patients before endoscopic eradication therapy.
AB - Background & Aims Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is routinely used for treatment of Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. Despite the relative safety of this method, there have been imprecise estimates of the rate of adverse events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the rate of adverse events associated with RFA with and without EMR. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central through October 22, 2014. The primary outcome of interest was the overall rate of adverse events after RFA with or without EMR. We used forest plots to contrast effect sizes among studies. Results Of 1521 articles assessed, 37 met our inclusion criteria (comprising 9200 patients). The pooled rate of all adverse events from RFA with or without EMR was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%–11.9%); 5.6% of patients developed strictures (95% CI, 4.2%–7.4%), 1% had bleeding (95% CI, 0.8%–1.3%), and 0.6% developed a perforation (95% CI, 0.4%–0.9%). In studies that compared RFA with vs without EMR, the relative risk for adverse events was significantly higher for RFA with EMR (4.4) (P = .015). There was a trend toward higher proportions of adverse events in prospective studies compared with retrospective studies (11.3% vs 7.8%, P = .20). Other factors associated with adverse events included Barrett's esophagus and length and baseline histology. Conclusions In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found the relative risk for adverse events from RFA to be about 4-fold higher with EMR than without; we identified factors associated with these events. Endoscopists should discuss these risks with patients before endoscopic eradication therapy.
KW - BE
KW - Complication
KW - Endoscopy
KW - Esophageal
KW - Risk Factor
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994083456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994083456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.04.001
DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.04.001
M3 - Review article
C2 - 27068041
AN - SCOPUS:84994083456
SN - 1542-3565
VL - 14
SP - 1086-1095.e6
JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
IS - 8
ER -