World journal of gastroenterology · 2015
Tolerability of magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy for esophageal cancer screening.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yamasaki Yasushi, Takenaka Ryuta, Hori Keisuke, Takemoto Koji, Kawano Seiji, Kawahara Yoshiro, Okada Hiroyuki, Fujiki Shigeatsu, Yamamoto Kazuhide
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the tolerability of magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy for esophageal cancer screening with that of lugol chromoendoscopy.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and analyzed 51 patients who were at high risk for esophageal cancer. All patients were divided into two groups: a magnifying narrow band imaging group, and a lugol chromoendoscopy group, for comparison of adverse symptoms. Esophageal cancer screening was performed on withdrawal of the endoscope. The primary endpoint was a score on a visual analogue scale for heartburn after the examination. The secondary endpoints were scale scores for retrosternal pain and dyspnea after the examinations, change in vital signs, total procedure time, and esophageal observation time.
RESULTS: The scores for heartburn and retrosternal pain in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly better than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (P = 0.004, 0.024, respectively, ANOVA for repeated measures). The increase in heart rate after the procedure was significantly greater in the lugol chromoendoscopy group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to other vital sign. The total procedure time and esophageal observation time in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly shorter than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (450 ± 116 vs 565 ± 174, P = 0.004, 44 ± 26 vs 151 ± 72, P < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy reduced the adverse symptoms compared with lugol chromoendoscopy. Narrow band imaging endoscopy is useful and suitable for esophageal cancer screening periodically.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and analyzed 51 patients who were at high risk for esophageal cancer. All patients were divided into two groups: a magnifying narrow band imaging group, and a lugol chromoendoscopy group, for comparison of adverse symptoms. Esophageal cancer screening was performed on withdrawal of the endoscope. The primary endpoint was a score on a visual analogue scale for heartburn after the examination. The secondary endpoints were scale scores for retrosternal pain and dyspnea after the examinations, change in vital signs, total procedure time, and esophageal observation time.
RESULTS: The scores for heartburn and retrosternal pain in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly better than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (P = 0.004, 0.024, respectively, ANOVA for repeated measures). The increase in heart rate after the procedure was significantly greater in the lugol chromoendoscopy group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to other vital sign. The total procedure time and esophageal observation time in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly shorter than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (450 ± 116 vs 565 ± 174, P = 0.004, 44 ± 26 vs 151 ± 72, P < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy reduced the adverse symptoms compared with lugol chromoendoscopy. Narrow band imaging endoscopy is useful and suitable for esophageal cancer screening periodically.