The burden of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with Barrett’s esophagus

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Patients with Barrett’s esophagus are recommended to undergo regular surveillance with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, an invasive procedure that may cause anxiety, pain, and discomfort. We assessed to what extent patients perceived this procedure as burdensome.
Patients and methods: A total of 192 patients with Barrett’s esophagus were asked to fill out questionnaires at 1 week and immediately before endoscopy, and at 1 week and 1 month afterwards. Four variables were assessed: (i) pain and discomfort experienced during endoscopy; (ii) symptoms; (iii) psychological burden, i. e., anxiety, depression and distress levels (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Impact of Event Scale); and (iv) perceived risk of developing adenocarcinoma.
Results: At least one questionnaire was returned by 180 patients (94 %), 151 completed all four (79 %). Of all patients, only 14 % experienced the endoscopy as painful. However, 59 % reported it to be burdensome. Apart from an increase in throat ache (47 % after endoscopy versus 12 % before), the procedure did not cause physical symptoms. Patients’ anxiety, depression, and distress levels were significantly increased in the week before endoscopy compared with the week after. Patients perceiving their risk of developing adenocarcinoma as high reported higher levels of psychological distress and that the procedure was a greater burden.
Conclusions: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is burdensome for many patients with Barrett’s esophagus and causes moderate distress. Perception of a high risk of adenocarcinoma may increase distress and the burden experienced from the procedure. The benefits of endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett’s esophagus should be weighed against its drawbacks, including the short-term burden for patients.

References

• 1 Bollschweiler E, Wolfgarten E, Gutschow C. et al . Demographic variations in the rising incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in white males.  Cancer. 2001;  92 549-555
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Botterweck A A, Schouten L J, Volovics A. et al . Trends in incidence of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and gastric cardia in ten European countries.  Int J Epidemiol. 2000;  29 645-654
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Bytzer P, Christensen P B, Damkier P. et al . Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and Barrett’s esophagus: a population-based study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 86-91
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Devesa S S, Blot W J, Fraumeni J F Jr. Changing patterns in the incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma in the United States.  Cancer. 1998;  83 2049-2053
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Shaheen N J, Crosby M J, Bozymski E M. et al . Is there publication bias in the reporting of cancer risk in Barrett’s esophagus?.  Gastroenterology. 2000;  119 333-338
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Sampliner R E. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus?.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1888-1895
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Cullen J, Schwartz M D, Lawrence W F. et al . Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life.  J Clin Oncol. 2004;  22 943-952
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 van der Burgh A, Dees J, Hop W C. et al . Oesophageal cancer is an uncommon cause of death in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus.  Gut. 1996;  39 5-8
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Hage M, Siersema P D, van Dekken H. et al . Oesophageal cancer incidence and mortality in patients with long-segment Barrett’s oesophagus after a mean follow-up of 12. 7 years.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;  39 1175-1179
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Conio M, Blanchi S, Lapertosa G. et al . Long-term endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Incidence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma: a prospective study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 1931-1939
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Spechler S J. Managing Barrett’s oesophagus.  BMJ. 2003;  326 892-894
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Chang J T, Katzka D A. Gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.  Arch Intern Med. 2004;  164 1482-1488
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Tytgat G N, Van Sandick J W, Lanschot J J. et al . Role of surveillance in intestinal metaplasia of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.  World J Surg. 2003;  27 1021-1025
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Craanen M E, Blok P, Meijer G A. et al . Surveillance in Barrett’s oesophagus: a critical reappraisal.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002;  236 Suppl 4-8
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Provenzale D, Schmitt C, Wong J B. Barrett’s esophagus: a new look at surveillance based on emerging estimates of cancer risk.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 2043-2053
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Provenzale D, Kemp J A, Arora S. et al . A guide for surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;  89 670-680
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Inadomi J M, Sampliner R, Lagergren J. et al . Screening and surveillance for Barrett esophagus in high-risk groups: a cost-utility analysis.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;  138 176-186
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Essink-Bot M L, Rijnsburger A J, Van Dooren S. et al . Women’s acceptance of MRI in breast cancer surveillance because of a familial or genetic predisposition.  The Breast,. submitted 2005; 
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Essink-Bot M L, de Koning H J, Nijs H G. et al . Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate cancer on health-related quality of life.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;  90 925-931
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers P P. et al . A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects.  Psychol Med. 1997;  27 363-370
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Zigmond A S, Snaith R P. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.  Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;  67 361-370
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Brom D, Kleber R J. De Schok Verwerkings Lijst.  Ned Tijdschr Psychol. 1985;  40 164-168
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.  Psychosom Med. 1979;  41 209-218
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Chemtob C M, Tomas S, Law W. et al . Postdisaster psychosocial intervention: a field study of the impact of debriefing on psychological distress.  Am J Psychiatr. 1997;  154 415-417
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 van Dooren S, Rijnsburger A J, Seynaeve C. et al . Psychological distress in women at increased risk for breast cancer: the role of risk perception.  Eur J Cancer. 2004;  40 2056-2063
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 The EuroQol Group . EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group.  Health Policy. 1990;  16 199-208
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play.  Health Policy. 1996;  37 53-72
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.  Med Care. 1997;  35 1095-1108
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Ren J, Xie P, Lang I M. et al . Deterioration of the pharyngo-UES contractile reflex in the elderly.  Laryngoscope. 2000;  110 1563-1566
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Schwartz C E, Sprangers A G (eds). Adaptation to changing health. Response shift in quality-of-life research. 1st edn. Washington DC; American Psychological Association 2000
  Google Scholar

M-L. Essink-Bot

Department of Public Health

Erasmus MC · PO Box 2040 · 3000 CA Rotterdam · The Netherlands

Fax: +31-104-638474

Email: m.essink-bot@erasmusmc.nl