Cargando…

A randomized controlled trial of endoscopic steroid injection for prophylaxis of esophageal stenoses after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND: Esophageal stenosis following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a serious adverse event that makes subsequent management more difficult. METHODS: This parallel, randomized, controlled, open-label study was designed to examine whether local steroid injection is an effective prophy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Takahashi, Hiroaki, Arimura, Yoshiaki, Okahara, Satoshi, Kodaira, Junichi, Hokari, Kaku, Tsukagoshi, Hiroyuki, Shinomura, Yasuhisa, Hosokawa, Masao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4308850/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25609176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-014-0226-6
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Esophageal stenosis following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a serious adverse event that makes subsequent management more difficult. METHODS: This parallel, randomized, controlled, open-label study was designed to examine whether local steroid injection is an effective prophylactic treatment for esophageal stenoses following extensive ESD. This single center trial was conducted at the Keiyukai Hospital, a tertiary care center for gastrointestinal disease in Japan [University Hospital Medical Network Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN-CTR) on 15 September 2011 (UMIN000006327)]. Thirty-two patients with mucosal defects involving ≥75% of the esophageal circumference were randomized to receive a single dose of triamcinolone acetonide injections (n = 16) or be treated conventionally (n = 16). The primary outcome was the frequency of stricture requiring endoscopic dilatation; the surrogate primary endpoint was the number of dilatation sessions needed. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rates, the minimum diameter of the stenotic area and the duration of the course of dilatation treatments. RESULTS: The frequency of stricture was not significantly different between the groups because of insufficient statistical power, but the number of dilatation sessions required was significantly less in the steroid group (6.1 sessions [95% confidence interval, CI 2.8–9.4] versus 12.5 [95% CI 7.1–17.9] sessions in the control group; P = 0.04). The perforation rate was similar in both groups. The minimum diameter of stenotic lumens was significantly greater in the treatment group than controls (11.0 mm versus 7.1 mm, respectively; P = 0.01). The perforation rate was not significantly different between the groups (1.0% versus 0.5% in the treatment and control group, respectively). Steroid injection was effective in cases of mucosal defects encompassing the entire esophageal circumference. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic endoscopic steroid injection appears to be a safe means of relieving the severity of esophageal stenoses following extensive ESD.