To study Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in cirrhosis and assess progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) compared to non-cirrhotic BE controls.METHODSCirrhotic patients who were found to have endoscopic evidence of B...To study Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in cirrhosis and assess progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) compared to non-cirrhotic BE controls.METHODSCirrhotic patients who were found to have endoscopic evidence of BE confirmed by the presence of intestinal metaplasia on histology from 1/1/2000 to 12/1/2015 at Cleveland Clinic were included. Cirrhotic patients were matched 1:4 to BE controls without cirrhosis. Age, gender, race, BE length, hiatal hernia size, Child-Pugh (CP) class and histological findings were recorded. Cases and controls without high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC and who had follow-up endoscopies were studied for incidence of dysplasia/EAC and to assess progression rates. Univariable conditional logistic regression was done to assess differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups.RESULTSA total of 57 patients with cirrhosis and BE were matched with 228 controls (BE without cirrhosis). The prevalence of dysplasia in cirrhosis and controls were similar with 8.8% vs 12% with low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 12.3 % vs 19.7% with HGD or EAC (P = 0.1). In the incidence cohort of 44 patients with median follow-up time of 2.7 years [interquartile range 1.0, 4.8], there were 7 cases of LGD, 2 cases of HGD, and 2 cases of EAC. There were no differences in incidence rates of HGD/EAC in nondysplastic BE between cirrhotic cases and noncirrhotic controls (1.4 vs 1.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.8). In LGD, cirrhotic patients were found to have higher rates of progression to HGD/EAC compared to control group though this did not reach statistical significance (13.7 vs 8.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.51). A significant association was found between a higher CP class and neoplastic progression of BE in cirrhotic patients (HR =7.9, 95%CI: 2.0-30.9, P = 0.003).CONCLUSIONCirrhotics with worsening liver function are at increased risk of progression of BE. More frequent endoscopic surveillance might be warranted in such patients.展开更多
文摘To study Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in cirrhosis and assess progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) compared to non-cirrhotic BE controls.METHODSCirrhotic patients who were found to have endoscopic evidence of BE confirmed by the presence of intestinal metaplasia on histology from 1/1/2000 to 12/1/2015 at Cleveland Clinic were included. Cirrhotic patients were matched 1:4 to BE controls without cirrhosis. Age, gender, race, BE length, hiatal hernia size, Child-Pugh (CP) class and histological findings were recorded. Cases and controls without high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC and who had follow-up endoscopies were studied for incidence of dysplasia/EAC and to assess progression rates. Univariable conditional logistic regression was done to assess differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups.RESULTSA total of 57 patients with cirrhosis and BE were matched with 228 controls (BE without cirrhosis). The prevalence of dysplasia in cirrhosis and controls were similar with 8.8% vs 12% with low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 12.3 % vs 19.7% with HGD or EAC (P = 0.1). In the incidence cohort of 44 patients with median follow-up time of 2.7 years [interquartile range 1.0, 4.8], there were 7 cases of LGD, 2 cases of HGD, and 2 cases of EAC. There were no differences in incidence rates of HGD/EAC in nondysplastic BE between cirrhotic cases and noncirrhotic controls (1.4 vs 1.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.8). In LGD, cirrhotic patients were found to have higher rates of progression to HGD/EAC compared to control group though this did not reach statistical significance (13.7 vs 8.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.51). A significant association was found between a higher CP class and neoplastic progression of BE in cirrhotic patients (HR =7.9, 95%CI: 2.0-30.9, P = 0.003).CONCLUSIONCirrhotics with worsening liver function are at increased risk of progression of BE. More frequent endoscopic surveillance might be warranted in such patients.
