Mayo Clinic in Rochester
Rochester, Minnesota, 55905, United States
NCT Number: NCT01288612
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.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me50 year–95 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Rochester, Minnesota, 55905, United States
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.
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Time frame: Visit 1
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.
Time frame: Visit 1
This outcome measures the recovery time after the procedure.
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.
Time frame: Day 1 after the procedure
Acceptability was defined as the proportion of subjects willing to undergo the procedure again in the future.
Mayo Clinic
Other
Acronym: challenge
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.
NCT04880044
Barrett Esophagus, Barrett's Esophagus
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT04408105
Adenocarcinoma Of Esophagus, Barrett Esophagus
Aurora, Colorado, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02534233
Barrett Esophagus, Barrett's Esophagus
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05965921
Barrett Esophagus, Barrett's Esophagus
Portsmouth, Hampshire, United Kingdom
View Trial Details