Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01288612

Comparative Effectiveness of Endoscopic Assessment of Gastroesophageal Reflux and Barretts Esophagus

The hypothesis of this study was that the comparative effectiveness of unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) will be greater than sedated endoscopy (sEGD) in population screening for BE.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

50 year–95 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Mayo Clinic in Rochester

Rochester, Minnesota, 55905, United States

About this study

Barrett's esophagus (BE), a well-known complication of Gastroesophageal Reflux (GER), is the strongest known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Thus, identifying effective screening approaches for the early detection of BE are highly desired. Current impediments to BE screening include 1) the inability to utilize sedated endoscopy (sEGD) effectively in populations and 2) current GER-based paradigms for detecting BE. Referral center studies demonstrate comparable accuracy between unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) and sEGD. However, patient acceptability and diagnostic yield with uTNE in general populations remain unknown.

Using the Rochester, Minnesota Epidemiology Project resources, random samples of Olmsted County residents were drawn, and those subjects were mailed validated gastrointestinal symptom questionnaires. These surveys allowed identification of a cohort of community subjects well characterized by the frequency of reflux symptoms. Eligible subjects who were greater than or equal to 50 years old, and who had no previous history of endoscopic evaluation and who were not known to have BE were randomized, stratified by age, sex, and reflux symptoms, and assigned to one of the 3 arms of the study. Subjects in each arm who met the eligibility criteria were initially sent generic invitation letters asking if they agreed to be contacted by phone in two weeks' time to inform them about a research study. If potential subjects explicitly declined to be contacted they were excluded from the study. Eligible subjects were contacted by telephone and only offered the endoscopy technique they had been randomized to. Subjects who accepted and signed an informed consent document were treated according to their randomized assignment and all 3 groups were followed up in the same manner.

Biopsies were taken from any endoscopically suspected BE and from the gastroesophageal junction and squamous mucosa in all subjects. The length of BE segment was defined using Prague criteria. All participants received a telephone call from the research coordinator 1 and 30 days after the procedure to complete validated tolerability scales and adverse events questionnaires.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Olmsted county, Minnesota resident
  • Age 50 or older
  • Able to give informed consent

Exclusion criteria

  • History of known Barretts Esophagus (BE) or endoscopy within the last 10 years
  • History of progressive dysphagia
  • Known Zenkers or epiphrenic diverticulum
  • History of recurrent epistaxis
  • Illnesses that impair ability to complete questionnaires (e.g. metastatic cancer, stroke, dementia)
  • Contraindication to esophageal biopsy (such as anticoagulation using warfarin or clopidogrel).

Treatment and study plan

Sedated Endoscopy

Device

The sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures were performed using a conventional high-definition endoscope (GIF-180, Olympus America, Center Valley, Pennsylvania) under conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and fentanyl.

Transnasal Endoscopy

Device

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy performed using the EndoSheath transnasal esophagoscope (TNL-5000, Vision Sciences). Topical anesthetic aerosol spray was applied to the posterior pharynx and nasal spray mixture was applied to the patients nares 10-15 minutes before the endoscopy procedure.

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Subjects Who Agreed to Participated in the Esophageal Assessment

    Time frame: Approximately 2 weeks after invitation letter was sent

    This outcome measure was defined as the proportion of subjects who agreed to undergo esophageal assessment in the three groups out of those who were eligible to be contacted for participation in screening.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rate of Successful Intubation

    Time frame: Visit 1

    The rate of successful intubation was defined as the ability to traverse the upper esophageal sphincter and visualize the esophageal mucosa and classified as successful or unsuccessful.

  2. Rate of Complete Evaluation

    Time frame: Visit 1

    The rate of complete evaluation was defined as visualization of the whole esophagus and identification of landmarks: squamocolumnar junction, gastroesophageal junction (upper margin of gastric folds with stomach deflated), and the diaphragmatic hiatus. The categories of evaluation were classified as complete (all three landmarks identified), incomplete (some landmarks identified), or unsuccessful.

  3. Rate of Acquisition of Biopsies From the Esophagus

    Time frame: Visit 1

  4. Mean Duration of Procedure

    Time frame: Visit 1

    Duration of the procedure was defined as time from the beginning of the procedure (initiation of sedation or local anesthesia) to extubation.

  5. Mean Time From Extubation to Discharge

    Time frame: Visit 1

    This outcome measures the recovery time after the procedure.

  6. Mean Tolerability Scores

    Time frame: Day 1 after the procedure

    Validated pain scales (where 0 is none and 10 is severe) were used to assess the degree of pain, choking, gagging, and anxiety experienced during the procedure. Overall tolerance was rated on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is good, and 10 is poor tolerance.

  7. Acceptability

    Time frame: Day 1 after the procedure

    Acceptability was defined as the proportion of subjects willing to undergo the procedure again in the future.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Mayo Clinic

Other

Collaborators

  • American College of Gastroenterology
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)

Registry information

Acronym: challenge

Important dates

Study start
2011
Primary completion
2013
Study completion
2013
First posted
Feb 2, 2011
Registry last updated
Jan 7, 2015

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.