Analysis of therapeutic effect and safety of argon plasma coagulation in barrett's esophagus

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8765.2018.04.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the effect and safety of argon plasma coagulation (APC) in Barrett's esophagus.

Method

Select 83 case of Barrett esophagus patients in our hospital during Jan., 2016~Feb., 2017 as retrospective analysis, patients were divided into intervention group (APC plus exoporazole, mosapride treatment, 52 cases) and routine group (esoprazole, mosapride treatment, 31 cases) according to the treatment plan of patients. The improvement of symptoms was compared between the two groups., efficacy and incidence of adverse reactions.

Result

Comparison of anti-acid, post-sternal pain and abdominal distension scores in the intervention group and the conventional group before treatment: (5.5±1.1) scores vs (5.4±1.3) scores, (5.1±1.2) scores vs (5.0±1.1) scores, (4.9±1.3) scores vs (4.7±1.5) scores, t is 0.3606, 0.3635, 0.6165, and P is 0.7194, 0.7172, 0.5394. Comparison of anti-acid, post-sternal pain and abdominal distension scores in intervention group and routine group for 3 months: (2.2±0.3) scores vs (2.3± 0.5) scores, (2.0 ± 0.4) scores vs (2.2 ± 0.5) scores, (2.1 ± 0.6)scores vs (2.0 ± 0.4) scores, t is 1.1056、1.9339、0.7881, and P is 0.2724、0.0569、0.4331. After 3 months of treatment, the anti-acid, post-sternal pain, and abdominal distension scores of the intervention group were compared with those before treatment: (2.3±0.5) scores vs (5.4±1.3) scores, (2.2±0.5) scores vs (5.0±1.1) scores, (2.0±0.4) scores vs (4.7±1.5) scores, t is 11.7771、12.2620、9.2031, and P value is 0.0000. After 3 months of treatment, the conventional group was compared with acid, post-sternal pain, and abdominal distension scores before treatment: (2.3± 0.5) scores vs (5.4 ± 1.3) scores, (2.2 ± 0.5) scores vs (5.0 ± 1.1) scores, (2.0 ± 0.4) scores vs (4.7 ± 1.5) scores, t is 11.7771、12.2620、9.2031, and P value is 0.0000. The total effective rate of treatment in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the conventional group [95.83% vs 70.37%, χ²= 7.6172, P=0.0058]. The overall incidence of adverse reactions in the intervention group and the conventional group was not statistically significant [12.50% vs 14.81%, χ²=0.0050, P=0.9436].

Conclusion

APC treatment of Barrett's esophagus can improve the patient's symptoms and improve the patient's pathology, with a significant effect and higher treatment safety.

Key words: Subion coagulation, Barrett's esophagus, Symptoms, Curative effect

Litifu Miyasaier·, Anzhaer Meilikezhati·, Kuerbanjiang Aimaitijiang·. Analysis of therapeutic effect and safety of argon plasma coagulation in barrett's esophagus[J]. Chinese Journal of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease(Electronic Edition), 2018, 05(04): 167-171.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhwsgflbdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8765.2018.04.007

https://zhwsgflbdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V05/I04/167

Figures/Tables 4

References 17

1	Pham TH, Genta RM, Spechler SJ. et al. Development and Characterization of a Surgical Mouse Model of Reflux Esophagitis and Barrett's Esophagus [J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2014, 18(2): 234-241.
2	Almond LM, Hutchings J, Lloyd G. et al. Endoscopic Raman spectroscopy enables objective diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dig Dis, 2014, 79(1): 37-45.
3	Dunbar KB, Souza RF, Spechler SJ. et al. The Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Barrett's Esophagus [J]. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am, 2015, 44(2): 415.
4	李小林，余倩，张学彦，等. Barrett食管的内镜介入治疗[J]．胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2015, 24(5): 603-605.
5	中华医学会消化病学分会. Barrett食管诊治共识（2005重庆草案）[J].胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2006, 9(18): 7-8.
6	吴昊，刘延军，马正良，等．视觉模拟量表评估患者术前焦虑程度的效度[J]．中华麻醉学杂志, 2016, 36(8): 1021-1022.
7	Sharaiha RZ, Freedberg DE, Abrams JA. et al. Cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention with proton pump inhibitors in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2014, 59(6): 1222-1230.
8	李晶晶，连军．窄带成像诊断Barrett食管及早期食管腺癌分析[J].现代仪器与医疗, 2017, 23(6): 23-25.
9	Boerwinkel DF, Holz JA, Hawkins DM. et al. Fluorescence spectroscopy incorporated in an Optical Biopsy System for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dis Esophagus, 2015, 28(4): 345-351.
10	Song J, Zhang J, Guo X. et al.Meta-analysis of the effects of endoscopy with narrow band imaging in detecting dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dis Esophagus, 2015, 28(6): 560-566.
11	郑仕诚，邓巍，郭洁，等．胃食管反流病诊断新进展[J].中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2015, 2(1): 45-47.
12	Dunn LJ, Jankowski JA, Griffin SM. et al. Trefoil Factor Expression in a Human Model of the Early Stages of Barrett's Esophagus [J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2015, 60(5): 1187-1194.
13	卢娟，刘爱华，赵成波，等．内镜下氩离子凝固术联合质子泵抑制剂治疗Barrett食管的近远期疗效分析[J]．实用临床医药杂志, 2016, 20(1): 81-82.
14	张成，克力木，李义亮，等.氩离子凝固术联合腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术加胃底折叠术治疗食管裂孔疝合并Barrett食管的疗效观察[J].中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(11): 1084-1087.
15	赫晓磊，黄晓玲，高峰，等.氩气凝固术联合艾司奥美拉唑肠溶片治疗206例Barrett食管患者的疗效观察[J]．中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2017, 4(2): 63-65.
16	张艳，陈爽，董文佳，等.氩离子凝固术联合药物治疗Barrett食管的临床研究[J]．实用医院临床杂志, 2016, 13(4): 106-108.
17	李应杰．内镜下氩离子凝固术联合乌梅汤加减方治疗Barrett食管临床观察[J]．陕西中医, 2017, 38(5): 556-557.

组别	例数	男/女（例）	年龄（岁）	病程（年）	食管病变长度(cm)
干预组	52	27/25	52.3±6.9	1.5±0.6	2.8±1.2
常规组	31	24/7	52.9±6.6	1.6±0.8	2.6±1.3
χ²/t值	-	1.4612	0.3894	0.6472	0.7120
P值	-	0.2267	0.6980	0.5193	0.4785

组别	例数	男/女（例）	年龄（岁）	病程（年）	食管病变长度(cm)
干预组	52	27/25	52.3±6.9	1.5±0.6	2.8±1.2
常规组	31	24/7	52.9±6.6	1.6±0.8	2.6±1.3
χ²/t值	-	1.4612	0.3894	0.6472	0.7120
P值	-	0.2267	0.6980	0.5193	0.4785

组别	例	反酸		胸骨后疼痛		腹胀
组别	数	治疗前	治疗3个月	治疗前	治疗3个月	治疗前	治疗3个月
干预组	50	5.5±1.1	2.2±0.3^*	5.1±1.2	2.0±0.4^*	4.9±1.3	2.1±0.6^*
常规组	28	5.4±1.3	2.3±0.5^#	5.0±1.1	2.2±0.5^#	4.7±1.5	2.0±0.4^#
t值	-	0.3606	1.1056	0.3635	1.9339	0.6165	0.7881
P值	-	0.7194	0.2724	0.7172	0.0569	0.5394	0.4331

组别	例	反酸		胸骨后疼痛		腹胀
组别	数	治疗前	治疗3个月	治疗前	治疗3个月	治疗前	治疗3个月
干预组	50	5.5±1.1	2.2±0.3^*	5.1±1.2	2.0±0.4^*	4.9±1.3	2.1±0.6^*
常规组	28	5.4±1.3	2.3±0.5^#	5.0±1.1	2.2±0.5^#	4.7±1.5	2.0±0.4^#
t值	-	0.3606	1.1056	0.3635	1.9339	0.6165	0.7881
P值	-	0.7194	0.2724	0.7172	0.0569	0.5394	0.4331

组别	例数	显效	有效	无效	总有效率(%)
干预组	48	29	17	2	95.83
常规组	27	8	11	8	70.37
χ²值	-	?	?	?	7.6172
P值	-	?	?	?	0.0058

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export