A prospective randomized trial of either famotidine or omeprazole for the prevention of bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection and the healing of endoscopic mucosal resection-induced ulceration.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that inhibitors of gastric acid secretion prevent bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection for mucosal gastric neoplasm. However, uncertain whether an histamine2-receptor antagonist or proton-pump inhibitor is more effective. AIM: To evaluate prospectively the effectiveness of famotidine or omeprazole for ulcer management after endoscopic mucosal resection. METHODS: From July 2003 to October 2004, 57 patients were randomly assigned to famotidine or omeprazole for the management of endoscopic mucosal resection. Both drugs were given intravenously for the first 2 days, thereafter by mouth. The bleeding rates after endoscopic mucosal resection, the effects on the healing of endoscopic mucosal resection-induced ulceration, and cost-benefits were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients received famotidine and 29 received omeprazole. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in patient characteristics. The bleeding rates after endoscopic mucosal resection were not significantly different (18% vs. 14%) between the groups. Similarly, no differences were seen in the size of the endoscopic mucosal resection-induced ulceration at 1, 30 and 60 days after resection between groups. The total costs of anti-secretory agents demonstrated a significant cost-benefit to those treated with famotidine (10,420 yen vs. 17,782 yen). CONCLUSIONS: Famotidine is suggested as a better alternative to omeprazole for the management of endoscopic mucosal resection, as it showed a clear cost-benefit, and the healing results after endoscopic mucosal resection were similar for the two treatment strategies.

Interobserver and intraobserver variation in endoscopic assessment of GERD using the "Los Angeles" classification.

BACKGROUND: A new endoscopic classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been proposed, and the term mucosal break has been introduced to describe mucosal damage. This new classification was evaluated by endoscopists with different levels of experience. METHODS: Fifty endoscopic photographs for each of 20 randomly selected patients with GERD were assessed retrospectively by three groups of seven endoscopists classified by experience: group 1 (100 to 500 procedures), group 2 (500 to 3000), and group 3 (more than 3000). The new classification was modified by adding grade 0 to describe healed mucosal breaks, so that there were five grades. All photographs were assessed twice at an interval of more than 1 week, and kappa statistics were used to determine observer variation. RESULTS: Interobserver variation within group 3 (kappa = 0.39, n = 21) and between groups 3 and 2 (kappa = 0.36, n = 49) was significantly different (p < 0.01) from that between groups 3 and 1 (kappa = 0.26, n = 49). Intraobserver variation in group 1 (kappa = 0.39, n = 7) was significantly different (p < 0.01) from that in group 2 (kappa = 0.51, n = 7) and group 3 (kappa = 0.54, n = 7). CONCLUSIONS: Observer variation depends on level of endoscopic experience. Only experienced endoscopists should use the new classification for grading of GERD.