Hybrid argon plasma coagulation in Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/Aims Patients with Barrett’s esophagus are at increased risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic therapies aim to eradicate dysplastic and metaplastic tissues. Hybrid argon plasma coagulation (hybrid-APC) utilizes submucosal fluid injection to create a protective cushion p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sagar N. Shah, Nabil El Hage Chehade, Amirali Tavangar, Alyssa Choi, Marc Monachese, Kenneth J. Chang, Jason B. Samarasena
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2023-01-01
Series:Clinical Endoscopy
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.e-ce.org/upload/pdf/ce-2022-179.pdf
Description
Summary:Background/Aims Patients with Barrett’s esophagus are at increased risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic therapies aim to eradicate dysplastic and metaplastic tissues. Hybrid argon plasma coagulation (hybrid-APC) utilizes submucosal fluid injection to create a protective cushion prior to ablation that shields the submucosa from injury. We performed a pooled meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hybrid-APC. Methods We conducted a systematic search of major electronic databases in April 2022. Studies that included patients with dysplastic and non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus undergoing treatment with hybrid-APC were eligible for inclusion. Outcome measures included complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM), stricture formation, serious adverse events, and number of sessions necessary to achieve CR-IM. Results Overall pooled CR-IM rate for patients undergoing hybrid-APC was 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.872–0.939; I2=0%). Pooled stricture rate was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.005–0.042; I2=0%). Overall serious adverse event rate was 2.7% (95% CI, 0.007–0.055; I2=0%). Conclusions Results of the current meta-analysis suggest that hybrid-APC is associated with high rates of CR-IM and a favorable safety profile. Interpretation of these results is limited by the inclusion of retrospective cohort and case series data. Randomized controlled trials that standardize treatment and outcome evaluation protocols are necessary to understand how this treatment option is comparable to the current standards of care.
ISSN:2234-2400
2234-2443