Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A Completed N=459 Randomized Screening

Comparative Effectiveness of Endoscopic Assessment of Gastroesophageal Reflux and Barretts Esophagus

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01288612 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
459
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jan 2015
Primary outcomePrimary: Percentage of Subjects Who Agreed to Participated in the Esophageal Assessment — 40.7; 45.7; 47.5 percentage of participants — p=0.25

Summary

The hypothesis of this study was that the comparative effectiveness of unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) will be greater than sedated endoscopy (sEGD) in population screening for BE.

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Percentage of Subjects Who Agreed to Participated in the Esophageal Assessment
40.7; 45.7; 47.5 0.25
SECONDARY
Rate of Successful Intubation
100; 95.8; 100 0.06
SECONDARY
Rate of Complete Evaluation
61; 69; 75; 0; 0; 1 0.08
SECONDARY
Rate of Acquisition of Biopsies From the Esophagus
100; 83.3; 79.0; 0; 16.7; 21 0.001 sig
SECONDARY
Mean Duration of Procedure
9.3; 8.0; 8.5 <0.001 sig
SECONDARY
Mean Time From Extubation to Discharge
67.3; 18.5; 15.5 <0.001 sig
SECONDARY
Mean Tolerability Scores
0.1; 2.7; 3.2; 0; 0.8; 0.6 <0.001 sig
SECONDARY
Acceptability
93.4; 83.3; 78.9; 6.6; 16.7; 21.1 0.001 sig

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Olmsted county, Minnesota resident
  • Age 50 or older
  • Able to give informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

  • History of known Barretts Esophagus (BE) or endoscopy within the last 10 years
  • History of progressive dysphagia
  • Known Zenkers or epiphrenic diverticulum
  • History of recurrent epistaxis
  • Illnesses that impair ability to complete questionnaires (e.g. metastatic cancer, stroke, dementia)
  • Contraindication to esophageal biopsy (such as anticoagulation using warfarin or clopidogrel).
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01288612). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication. Informational only — not medical advice.

Back to search