Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients.
View / Open Files
Authors
Januszewicz, Wladyslaw
Tan, Wei Keith
Lehovsky, Katie
Debiram-Beecham, Irene
Nuckcheddy, Tara
Moist, Susan
Kadri, Sudarshan
di Pietro, Massimiliano
Boussioutas, Alex
Shaheen, Nicholas J
Katzka, David A
Dellon, Evan S
Fitzgerald, Rebecca C
BEST1 and BEST2 study investigators
Publication Date
2019-03Journal Title
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
ISSN
1542-3565
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
647-656.e1
Language
eng
Type
Article
Physical Medium
Print-Electronic
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Januszewicz, W., Tan, W. K., Lehovsky, K., Debiram-Beecham, I., Nuckcheddy, T., Moist, S., Kadri, S., et al. (2019). Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients.. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 17 (4), 647-656.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.043
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have become emerging public health issues. Cytosponge is a novel, minimally invasive esophageal cell collection device. We aimed to assess the data on safety and acceptability of this device. METHODS: We performed a patient-level review of 5 prospective trials assessing Cytosponge performance in patients with reflux disease, BE and EoE in primary and secondary care. Acceptability of Cytosponge and subsequent endoscopy were recorded with visual analogue scale (VAS), wherein 0 and 10 denoted lowest and highest acceptability. Median VAS scores were compared using a Mann-Whitney test. The number of attempts, failures in swallowing the device and occurrence of adverse events were analyzed. Risk factors for failure in swallowing were analyzed using a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: In total, 2672 Cytosponge procedures were performed, in 2418 individuals from 2008 through 2017. There were 2 adverse events related to the device: a minor pharyngeal bleed and a case of detachment (<1:2000). The median acceptability score for the Cytosponge was 6.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-8.0), which was higher than the score for endoscopy without sedation (median 5.0; IQR, 3.0-7.0; P < .001) and lower than the score for endoscopy with sedation (median 8.0; IQR, 5.0-9.0; P < .001). Nearly all patients (91.1%) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, most on the first attempt (90.1%). Failure to swallow the device was more likely to occur in secondary care (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.48-17.79; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge test is a safe procedure with good acceptability ratings in a variety of health care settings.
Keywords
Acceptability of Healthcare, Medical Device, Safety, Aged, Barrett Esophagus, Cytological Techniques, Eosinophilic Esophagitis, Equipment and Supplies, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Safety, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Specimen Handling
Sponsorship
Cancer Research Uk (None)
MRC (unknown)
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12022/2)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K24DK100548)
Cancer Research UK (C14478/A12088)
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.043
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/283106
Rights
Licence:
http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk