Barrett’s esophagus: Review of natural history and comparative efficacy of endoscopic and surgical therapies

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Progression to cancer typically occurs in a stepwise fashion through worsening dysplasia and ultimately, invasive neoplasia. Established EAC with deep involvement of the esophageal wall and/or metastatic disease is invariably associated with poor long-term survival rates. This guides the rationale of surveillance of Barrett’s in an attempt to treat lesions at an earlier, and potentially curative stage. The last two decades have seen a paradigm shift in management of Barrett’s with rapid expansion in the role of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for management of dysplastic and early neoplastic BE, and there have been substantial changes to international consensus guidelines for management of early BE based on evolving evidence. This review aims to assist the physician in the therapeutic decision-making process with patients by comprehensive review and summary of literature surrounding natural history of Barrett’s by histological stage, and the effectiveness of interventions in attenuating the risk posed by its natural history. Key findings were as follows. Non-dysplastic Barrett’s is associated with extremely low risk of progression, and interventions cannot be justified. The annual risk of cancer progression in low grade dysplasia is between 1%-3%; EET can be offered though evidence for its benefit remains confined to highly select settings. High-grade dysplasia progresses to cancer in 5%-10% per year; EET is similarly effective to and less morbid than surgery and should be routinely performed for this indication. Risk of nodal metastases in intramucosal cancer is 2%-4%, which is comparable to operative mortality rate, so EET is usually preferred. Submucosal cancer is associated with nodal metastases in 14%-41% hence surgery remains standard of care, except for select situations.     

Comparative Outcome Analysis of N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Embolization of the False Lumen Versus Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Aortic Dissection

PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) embolization for the treatment of aortic dissection.Materials and MethodsIn this single-center retrospective study conducted from February 2003 to June 2019, NBCA embolization of an aortic false lumen was attempted in 12 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 41–68 y) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was performed in 53 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 37–70 y) for aortic dissection with one or more indications of persisting pain, malperfusion, rupture or impending rupture, maximal aortic diameter ≥ 55 mm, and/or rapid aortic enlargement. The main exclusion criterion for embolization was the presence of fast blood flow in the aortic false lumen on aortography. The efficacy of NBCA embolization and TEVAR was compared by evaluating technical and clinical outcomes, repeat intervention–free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsTechnical success was achieved in 11 of the 12 patients treated with NBCA embolization (91.7%), and clinical success was achieved in 9 of these 11 (81.8%). No significant difference was found between embolization and TEVAR in clinical success rates (embolization, 81.8%; TEVAR, 84.9%; P = .409) or procedure-related complications (embolization, 1 patient [8.3%]; TEVAR, 4 patients [7.5%]; P = .701). In addition, embolization showed comparable 5-y RFS (embolization, 82.5% ± 9.3; TEVAR, 85.5% ± 4.8; P = .641) and 5-y OS (embolization, 100%; TEVAR, 95.4% ± 3.2; P = .744) rates to TEVAR.ConclusionsNBCA embolization of the false lumen in aortic dissection seems to be a safe and effective treatment modality for the closure of false lumen in selected patients.