Endoscopy

Tracheal deviation mostly occurs from mechanical compression of the trachea, and can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions, including trauma,¹ pharyngeal abscess,² neck hematoma,³ thyroid enlargement,⁴ and kyphoscoliosis.⁵ These conditions often result in lateral tracheal deviation, which can be associated with tracheal compression and reduction in tracheal caliber.

Anterior-posterior (A-P) tracheal deviation has rarely been reported. Kyphoscoliosis, scarring after a tracheostomy, or innominate vein compression are probable causes of A-P tracheal deviation and can be associated with tracheal narrowing and vascular fistula formation. This report describes a case of difficult endotracheal tube (ETT) advancement secondary to unexpected acute posterior tracheal deviation encountered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A waiver of patient consent was obtained from the Human Research Protection Program at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System.

Case Presentation

A 50-year-old male with a history of chronic cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and taking enoxaparin, presented to the emergency department for recurrent headaches. He experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and CPR in the form of chest compression and bag mask ventilation was immediately initiated. With the patient's head in an extended position and using a video laryngoscope, a Cormack–Lehane grade 1 view of the glottic opening was obtained and the trachea was intubated with an 8 mm (internal diameter) polyvinyl chloride ETT. Tracheal intubation was confirmed by utilizing continuous EtCO₂ monitoring. The ETT was secured at 22 cm measured at the teeth.

After about 40 minutes of CPR, spontaneous circulation restarted and a portable A-P chest X-ray with the head in a neutral position indicated the ETT tip was at the level of the first rib (Figure 1). This finding, along with a persistent air leak, prompted blind advancement of the ETT to 26 cm at the teeth, but resistance to advancement was noted. A subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) with the head in a neutral position revealed the ETT remained inappropriately positioned with the tip measured 8.2 cm above the carina (Figure 2A). Concurrently, a sagittal CT view demonstrated significant posterior deviation of the mid and lower trachea. This deviation was determined to be the most likely cause of the difficulty encountered in advancing the ETT. No masses or lesions contributing to the acute tracheal angulation could be identified. Comparing CT imaging from 2 months prior, the trachea was of normal caliber and ordinarily aligned with the vertebral column (Figure 2B).

With the patient in Fowler position with the head midline, a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed. Acute, almost 90-degree tracheal angulation was encountered and navigated by retroflexion of the flexible bronchoscope. Once the posterior tracheal wall was encountered, retroflexion was relaxed and the carina was visualized. The bronchoscope tip was placed near the carina, and the ETT was advanced over the fiber-optic bronchoscope to terminate 3 cm above the carina. A subsequent chest X-ray confirmed appropriate ETT position (Figure 3).

Discussion

Tracheal deviation in the A-P dimension resulting in difficult tracheal intubation has rarely been reported. Previous reports have described anatomical lesions contributing to similar tracheal deviation, such as retro-tracheal thyroid tissue, pronounced cervical lordosis, and severe kyphoscoliosis with destructive cervical fusion.^5-8 In a study of the anatomical correlation of double lumen tube placement while using positron emission tomography CT, Cameron et al evaluated the size and angulation of the glottis and proximal trachea using calibrated CT measurements and an online digital protractor and note nearly perfect alignment of the pharynx and glottis.⁹ However, the trachea turned posteriorly relative to the glottis, resulting in an overall posterior angle of the proximal trachea compared to the glottis of 30.4 to 50.1 degrees, with no sex differences. The need to maneuver similar proximal tracheal angulation during endotracheal intubation has been reported as a cause of difficult intubation.¹⁰

In this case, the posterior angulation was not encountered in the proximal trachea but rather in the more distal trachea. The extreme A-P tracheal deviation was not associated with any identifiable masses or lesions. A CT performed 2 months prior demonstrated normal tracheal anatomy, and there was no interval history of neck trauma or tracheal obstruction suggestive of a likely cause for this deviation. This change in the patient’s tracheal anatomy was only discovered after CPR had been performed and as part of the workup for cardiac arrest. Iatrogenic injuries are known to occur during CPR. Common CPR-related airway injuries include tracheal mucosal injury from traumatic intubation and bony injuries to the chest wall from compressions.¹¹ Laryngeal cartilage damage from intubation may also occur, but tracheal displacement following CPR has not been previously reported.¹¹

This case of tracheal deviation is unlikely to be related to patient positioning, as the A-P deviation persisted in 3 separate head and neck alignments. First, during indirect laryngoscopy, performed in a standard sniffing position. Second, during the CT, performed in the supine position, with no head support. The acute A-P deviation seen in Figure 2 was clearly noted in this position. Lastly, flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed in a semiupright position with the head supported on a pillow. A-P deviation was encountered and navigated in this position during flexible fiber-optic guided ETT repositioning. 

Using magnetic resonance imaging, alterations in the alignment of pharyngeal and tracheal axes have been described with changes in neck positioning; however, tracheal deviation has not been described with changes in head and neck alignment.¹² Although the clinical presentation in this case was consistent with prior reports, we were unable to identify any previously reported anatomic cause for the tracheal deviation.^5,6,8 Initial glottic visualization with a video laryngoscope was unremarkable, but resistance to sufficient ETT advancement past the vocal cords and a persistent air leak due to cuff herniation through the glottic opening was noticeable. The ETT was maneuvered to an appropriate position in the trachea using a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscope. The acute angulation of the trachea that was appreciated on bronchoscopy did not result in kinking of the ETT both initially and after in-situ thermosoftening of the polyvinyl chloride tube.¹³ Previously reported instances of A-P tracheal deviation have outlined the necessity of using alternative techniques to establish a patent airway, including the use of a laryngeal mask airway and a cuffless ETT with saline-soaked gauze packing.^5,8 In 1 reported case, awake fiber-optic intubation was performed when difficult tracheal intubation was anticipated due to known A-P tracheal deviation.⁶

Failure of ETT advancement can be due to obstruction from the arytenoids and at the level of the vocal cords.¹⁴ When the ETT has been visualized to have traversed the vocal cords, tracheal A-P deviation should be considered as a cause of difficult ETT advancement. If an adequate endotracheal airway cannot be established, prompt consideration should be given to placement of a supraglottic airway. Early fiber-optic bronchoscopy should be used to establish the diagnosis and assist with proper ETT positioning.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the rare occurrence of A-P tracheal deviation leading to difficult intubation during CPR. The findings underscore the importance of considering A-P deviation as a potential cause of airway complications in emergency settings, especially in patients with previously normal tracheal anatomy. The successful use of flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy in this case provides a valuable technique for addressing acute tracheal angulation. This report contributes to the limited literature on A-P tracheal deviation and serves as a reminder for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for unusual airway challenges during critical interventions.

Tracheal deviation mostly occurs from mechanical compression of the trachea, and can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions, including trauma,¹ pharyngeal abscess,² neck hematoma,³ thyroid enlargement,⁴ and kyphoscoliosis.⁵ These conditions often result in lateral tracheal deviation, which can be associated with tracheal compression and reduction in tracheal caliber.

Anterior-posterior (A-P) tracheal deviation has rarely been reported. Kyphoscoliosis, scarring after a tracheostomy, or innominate vein compression are probable causes of A-P tracheal deviation and can be associated with tracheal narrowing and vascular fistula formation. This report describes a case of difficult endotracheal tube (ETT) advancement secondary to unexpected acute posterior tracheal deviation encountered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A waiver of patient consent was obtained from the Human Research Protection Program at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System.

Case Presentation

A 50-year-old male with a history of chronic cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and taking enoxaparin, presented to the emergency department for recurrent headaches. He experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and CPR in the form of chest compression and bag mask ventilation was immediately initiated. With the patient's head in an extended position and using a video laryngoscope, a Cormack–Lehane grade 1 view of the glottic opening was obtained and the trachea was intubated with an 8 mm (internal diameter) polyvinyl chloride ETT. Tracheal intubation was confirmed by utilizing continuous EtCO₂ monitoring. The ETT was secured at 22 cm measured at the teeth.

After about 40 minutes of CPR, spontaneous circulation restarted and a portable A-P chest X-ray with the head in a neutral position indicated the ETT tip was at the level of the first rib (Figure 1). This finding, along with a persistent air leak, prompted blind advancement of the ETT to 26 cm at the teeth, but resistance to advancement was noted. A subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) with the head in a neutral position revealed the ETT remained inappropriately positioned with the tip measured 8.2 cm above the carina (Figure 2A). Concurrently, a sagittal CT view demonstrated significant posterior deviation of the mid and lower trachea. This deviation was determined to be the most likely cause of the difficulty encountered in advancing the ETT. No masses or lesions contributing to the acute tracheal angulation could be identified. Comparing CT imaging from 2 months prior, the trachea was of normal caliber and ordinarily aligned with the vertebral column (Figure 2B).

With the patient in Fowler position with the head midline, a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed. Acute, almost 90-degree tracheal angulation was encountered and navigated by retroflexion of the flexible bronchoscope. Once the posterior tracheal wall was encountered, retroflexion was relaxed and the carina was visualized. The bronchoscope tip was placed near the carina, and the ETT was advanced over the fiber-optic bronchoscope to terminate 3 cm above the carina. A subsequent chest X-ray confirmed appropriate ETT position (Figure 3).

Discussion

Tracheal deviation in the A-P dimension resulting in difficult tracheal intubation has rarely been reported. Previous reports have described anatomical lesions contributing to similar tracheal deviation, such as retro-tracheal thyroid tissue, pronounced cervical lordosis, and severe kyphoscoliosis with destructive cervical fusion.^5-8 In a study of the anatomical correlation of double lumen tube placement while using positron emission tomography CT, Cameron et al evaluated the size and angulation of the glottis and proximal trachea using calibrated CT measurements and an online digital protractor and note nearly perfect alignment of the pharynx and glottis.⁹ However, the trachea turned posteriorly relative to the glottis, resulting in an overall posterior angle of the proximal trachea compared to the glottis of 30.4 to 50.1 degrees, with no sex differences. The need to maneuver similar proximal tracheal angulation during endotracheal intubation has been reported as a cause of difficult intubation.¹⁰

In this case, the posterior angulation was not encountered in the proximal trachea but rather in the more distal trachea. The extreme A-P tracheal deviation was not associated with any identifiable masses or lesions. A CT performed 2 months prior demonstrated normal tracheal anatomy, and there was no interval history of neck trauma or tracheal obstruction suggestive of a likely cause for this deviation. This change in the patient’s tracheal anatomy was only discovered after CPR had been performed and as part of the workup for cardiac arrest. Iatrogenic injuries are known to occur during CPR. Common CPR-related airway injuries include tracheal mucosal injury from traumatic intubation and bony injuries to the chest wall from compressions.¹¹ Laryngeal cartilage damage from intubation may also occur, but tracheal displacement following CPR has not been previously reported.¹¹

This case of tracheal deviation is unlikely to be related to patient positioning, as the A-P deviation persisted in 3 separate head and neck alignments. First, during indirect laryngoscopy, performed in a standard sniffing position. Second, during the CT, performed in the supine position, with no head support. The acute A-P deviation seen in Figure 2 was clearly noted in this position. Lastly, flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed in a semiupright position with the head supported on a pillow. A-P deviation was encountered and navigated in this position during flexible fiber-optic guided ETT repositioning. 

Using magnetic resonance imaging, alterations in the alignment of pharyngeal and tracheal axes have been described with changes in neck positioning; however, tracheal deviation has not been described with changes in head and neck alignment.¹² Although the clinical presentation in this case was consistent with prior reports, we were unable to identify any previously reported anatomic cause for the tracheal deviation.^5,6,8 Initial glottic visualization with a video laryngoscope was unremarkable, but resistance to sufficient ETT advancement past the vocal cords and a persistent air leak due to cuff herniation through the glottic opening was noticeable. The ETT was maneuvered to an appropriate position in the trachea using a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscope. The acute angulation of the trachea that was appreciated on bronchoscopy did not result in kinking of the ETT both initially and after in-situ thermosoftening of the polyvinyl chloride tube.¹³ Previously reported instances of A-P tracheal deviation have outlined the necessity of using alternative techniques to establish a patent airway, including the use of a laryngeal mask airway and a cuffless ETT with saline-soaked gauze packing.^5,8 In 1 reported case, awake fiber-optic intubation was performed when difficult tracheal intubation was anticipated due to known A-P tracheal deviation.⁶

Failure of ETT advancement can be due to obstruction from the arytenoids and at the level of the vocal cords.¹⁴ When the ETT has been visualized to have traversed the vocal cords, tracheal A-P deviation should be considered as a cause of difficult ETT advancement. If an adequate endotracheal airway cannot be established, prompt consideration should be given to placement of a supraglottic airway. Early fiber-optic bronchoscopy should be used to establish the diagnosis and assist with proper ETT positioning.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the rare occurrence of A-P tracheal deviation leading to difficult intubation during CPR. The findings underscore the importance of considering A-P deviation as a potential cause of airway complications in emergency settings, especially in patients with previously normal tracheal anatomy. The successful use of flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy in this case provides a valuable technique for addressing acute tracheal angulation. This report contributes to the limited literature on A-P tracheal deviation and serves as a reminder for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for unusual airway challenges during critical interventions.

Tracheal deviation mostly occurs from mechanical compression of the trachea, and can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions, including trauma,¹ pharyngeal abscess,² neck hematoma,³ thyroid enlargement,⁴ and kyphoscoliosis.⁵ These conditions often result in lateral tracheal deviation, which can be associated with tracheal compression and reduction in tracheal caliber.

Anterior-posterior (A-P) tracheal deviation has rarely been reported. Kyphoscoliosis, scarring after a tracheostomy, or innominate vein compression are probable causes of A-P tracheal deviation and can be associated with tracheal narrowing and vascular fistula formation. This report describes a case of difficult endotracheal tube (ETT) advancement secondary to unexpected acute posterior tracheal deviation encountered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A waiver of patient consent was obtained from the Human Research Protection Program at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System.

Case Presentation

A 50-year-old male with a history of chronic cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and taking enoxaparin, presented to the emergency department for recurrent headaches. He experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and CPR in the form of chest compression and bag mask ventilation was immediately initiated. With the patient's head in an extended position and using a video laryngoscope, a Cormack–Lehane grade 1 view of the glottic opening was obtained and the trachea was intubated with an 8 mm (internal diameter) polyvinyl chloride ETT. Tracheal intubation was confirmed by utilizing continuous EtCO₂ monitoring. The ETT was secured at 22 cm measured at the teeth.

After about 40 minutes of CPR, spontaneous circulation restarted and a portable A-P chest X-ray with the head in a neutral position indicated the ETT tip was at the level of the first rib (Figure 1). This finding, along with a persistent air leak, prompted blind advancement of the ETT to 26 cm at the teeth, but resistance to advancement was noted. A subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) with the head in a neutral position revealed the ETT remained inappropriately positioned with the tip measured 8.2 cm above the carina (Figure 2A). Concurrently, a sagittal CT view demonstrated significant posterior deviation of the mid and lower trachea. This deviation was determined to be the most likely cause of the difficulty encountered in advancing the ETT. No masses or lesions contributing to the acute tracheal angulation could be identified. Comparing CT imaging from 2 months prior, the trachea was of normal caliber and ordinarily aligned with the vertebral column (Figure 2B).

With the patient in Fowler position with the head midline, a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed. Acute, almost 90-degree tracheal angulation was encountered and navigated by retroflexion of the flexible bronchoscope. Once the posterior tracheal wall was encountered, retroflexion was relaxed and the carina was visualized. The bronchoscope tip was placed near the carina, and the ETT was advanced over the fiber-optic bronchoscope to terminate 3 cm above the carina. A subsequent chest X-ray confirmed appropriate ETT position (Figure 3).

Discussion

Tracheal deviation in the A-P dimension resulting in difficult tracheal intubation has rarely been reported. Previous reports have described anatomical lesions contributing to similar tracheal deviation, such as retro-tracheal thyroid tissue, pronounced cervical lordosis, and severe kyphoscoliosis with destructive cervical fusion.^5-8 In a study of the anatomical correlation of double lumen tube placement while using positron emission tomography CT, Cameron et al evaluated the size and angulation of the glottis and proximal trachea using calibrated CT measurements and an online digital protractor and note nearly perfect alignment of the pharynx and glottis.⁹ However, the trachea turned posteriorly relative to the glottis, resulting in an overall posterior angle of the proximal trachea compared to the glottis of 30.4 to 50.1 degrees, with no sex differences. The need to maneuver similar proximal tracheal angulation during endotracheal intubation has been reported as a cause of difficult intubation.¹⁰

In this case, the posterior angulation was not encountered in the proximal trachea but rather in the more distal trachea. The extreme A-P tracheal deviation was not associated with any identifiable masses or lesions. A CT performed 2 months prior demonstrated normal tracheal anatomy, and there was no interval history of neck trauma or tracheal obstruction suggestive of a likely cause for this deviation. This change in the patient’s tracheal anatomy was only discovered after CPR had been performed and as part of the workup for cardiac arrest. Iatrogenic injuries are known to occur during CPR. Common CPR-related airway injuries include tracheal mucosal injury from traumatic intubation and bony injuries to the chest wall from compressions.¹¹ Laryngeal cartilage damage from intubation may also occur, but tracheal displacement following CPR has not been previously reported.¹¹

This case of tracheal deviation is unlikely to be related to patient positioning, as the A-P deviation persisted in 3 separate head and neck alignments. First, during indirect laryngoscopy, performed in a standard sniffing position. Second, during the CT, performed in the supine position, with no head support. The acute A-P deviation seen in Figure 2 was clearly noted in this position. Lastly, flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed in a semiupright position with the head supported on a pillow. A-P deviation was encountered and navigated in this position during flexible fiber-optic guided ETT repositioning. 

Using magnetic resonance imaging, alterations in the alignment of pharyngeal and tracheal axes have been described with changes in neck positioning; however, tracheal deviation has not been described with changes in head and neck alignment.¹² Although the clinical presentation in this case was consistent with prior reports, we were unable to identify any previously reported anatomic cause for the tracheal deviation.^5,6,8 Initial glottic visualization with a video laryngoscope was unremarkable, but resistance to sufficient ETT advancement past the vocal cords and a persistent air leak due to cuff herniation through the glottic opening was noticeable. The ETT was maneuvered to an appropriate position in the trachea using a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscope. The acute angulation of the trachea that was appreciated on bronchoscopy did not result in kinking of the ETT both initially and after in-situ thermosoftening of the polyvinyl chloride tube.¹³ Previously reported instances of A-P tracheal deviation have outlined the necessity of using alternative techniques to establish a patent airway, including the use of a laryngeal mask airway and a cuffless ETT with saline-soaked gauze packing.^5,8 In 1 reported case, awake fiber-optic intubation was performed when difficult tracheal intubation was anticipated due to known A-P tracheal deviation.⁶

Failure of ETT advancement can be due to obstruction from the arytenoids and at the level of the vocal cords.¹⁴ When the ETT has been visualized to have traversed the vocal cords, tracheal A-P deviation should be considered as a cause of difficult ETT advancement. If an adequate endotracheal airway cannot be established, prompt consideration should be given to placement of a supraglottic airway. Early fiber-optic bronchoscopy should be used to establish the diagnosis and assist with proper ETT positioning.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the rare occurrence of A-P tracheal deviation leading to difficult intubation during CPR. The findings underscore the importance of considering A-P deviation as a potential cause of airway complications in emergency settings, especially in patients with previously normal tracheal anatomy. The successful use of flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy in this case provides a valuable technique for addressing acute tracheal angulation. This report contributes to the limited literature on A-P tracheal deviation and serves as a reminder for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for unusual airway challenges during critical interventions.

Routine use of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to a loss of skills among clinicians who perform colonoscopies, thereby affecting patient outcomes, a large observational study suggested.

“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”

Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

 

ADR Reduced After AI Use

To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.

These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.

The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.

The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.

Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.

Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.

The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.

The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).

The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.

Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.

In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.

In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.

“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”

“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”

Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”

 

‘Certainly a Signal’

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”

“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”

That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.

“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”

The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”

“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”

The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine use of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to a loss of skills among clinicians who perform colonoscopies, thereby affecting patient outcomes, a large observational study suggested.

“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”

Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

 

ADR Reduced After AI Use

To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.

These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.

The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.

The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.

Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.

Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.

The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.

The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).

The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.

Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.

In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.

In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.

“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”

“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”

Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”

 

‘Certainly a Signal’

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”

“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”

That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.

“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”

The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”

“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”

The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine use of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to a loss of skills among clinicians who perform colonoscopies, thereby affecting patient outcomes, a large observational study suggested.

“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”

Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

 

ADR Reduced After AI Use

To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.

These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.

The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.

The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.

Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.

Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.

The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.

The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).

The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.

Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.

In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.

In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.

“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”

“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”

Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”

 

‘Certainly a Signal’

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”

“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”

That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.

“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”

The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”

“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”

The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Below are some selections from what I am reading in the AGA journals, highlighting clinically applicable and possibly practice-changing expert reviews and studies.

Esophagus/Motility

Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.

Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.

Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.

Stomach

Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.

Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.

Colon

Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.

Pancreas

Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.

Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.

Hepatology

Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.

Miscellaneous

Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.

Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.

Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.

Below are some selections from what I am reading in the AGA journals, highlighting clinically applicable and possibly practice-changing expert reviews and studies.

Esophagus/Motility

Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.

Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.

Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.

Stomach

Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.

Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.

Colon

Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.

Pancreas

Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.

Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.

Hepatology

Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.

Miscellaneous

Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.

Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.

Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.

Below are some selections from what I am reading in the AGA journals, highlighting clinically applicable and possibly practice-changing expert reviews and studies.

Esophagus/Motility

Nguyen AD, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Incorporating Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Into Esophageal Clinical Practice: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.05.011.

Hartnett DA, et al. Distribution of Esophageal Eosinophilia as a Predictor of Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.06.032.

Gyawali CP, et al. pH Impedance Monitoring on Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy Impacts Management Decisions in Proven GERD but not in Unproven GERD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.02.032.

Stomach

Wiklund AK, et al. Risk of Gastric Adenocarcinoma After Eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.239.

Sonaiya S, et al. Over-the-Scope Clip versus Standard Endoscopic Therapy as First-Line Intervention for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250935.

Colon

Hassan C, et al. Colon Cancer Screening, Surveillance, and Treatment: Novel Artificial Intelligence Driving Strategies in the Management of Colon Lesions. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.021.

Pancreas

Wilcox CM, et al; US Pancreatic Disease Study Group. Management of the Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatic Necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.05.024.

Ghimire C, et al. The effect of advances in pancreatic cancer treatment in population mortality: A SEER-based study. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100739.

Hepatology

Canivet CM, et al. Validation of the AASLD/EASL Multi-Step Screening Strategies for MASLD. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100747.

Miscellaneous

Chang L, et al. Gut Feelings: The Critical Role of Interoception in Obesity and Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction. Gastroenterology. 2025 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.002.

Bashiri K, et al. Advancing Hemostatic Powder Technologies for Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Challenges and Solutions. Tech Innov Gastrointest. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250940.

Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.

Dear colleagues,

In the dynamic field of medicine, long-held practices are being reevaluated in light of new evidence and evolving standards of practice. In this issue of Perspectives, we present two thoughtful contributions that discuss changes in the way we approach esophageal varices and Barrett’s esophagus.

Dr. Anahita Rabiee discusses the importance of prioritizing non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) over endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Drawing on data from the PREDESCI trial and real-world experience, she argues that NSBB address the upstream driver—portal hypertension—more broadly and effectively than EVL. In a complementary piece, Dr. Tarek Sawas explores the nuanced landscape of screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus. From how to manage irregular Z-lines, to rethinking the need for 1-year follow-up endoscopies and interpreting the implications of the BOSS trial, Dr. Sawas advocates for a more personalized, risk-based approach. 

We hope these perspectives spark dialogue and reflection in your own practice. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN. 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Choose NSBBs, Not EVL, in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis

BY ANAHITA RABIEE, MD, MHS

I strongly favor the use of non selective beta blockers (NSBBs) in patients with compensated cirrhosis, rather than endoscopy and esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) for primary prophylaxis.

Since the results of PREDESCI trial (β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH)) were published in 2019, there has been much debate on the role of screening endoscopy and EVL for primary prophylaxis. While many argue that a single randomized trial should not overturn long standing practice, several compelling reasons convince me to choose NSBBs, when possible.

Recent guidance from major liver societies now recommends NSBBs as first line therapy for CSPH. Yet, adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent.

Here is why I believe NSBB represent a better solution:

 

Treating Upstream, Not Just a Local Treatment

NSBBs such as propranolol and nadolol decrease portal pressure by decreasing portal venous inflow through β1 and β2 adrenergic blockade. Carvedilol is often preferred given its additional α1 adrenergic blocking activity making it the most effective one in decreasing the portal pressure. Therefore, NSBBs address the upstream driver of decompensation by decreasing portal pressures.

EVL, in contrast, is a local fix that only prevents variceal bleeding. Ascites, not variceal bleeding, is the most common initial decompensating event and is associated with high mortality. Preventing all forms of decompensation is clearly preferable to preventing just one.

 

Broader Eligibility, More Patients Benefit

CSPH is defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)>10 mmHg, the threshold where increased portal venous inflow secondary to splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulation drives the increase in portal hypertension. This threshold has been shown to strongly predict decompensation in patients with compensated disease.

While all patients with varices have CSPH, not all patients with CSPH have varices. They can be identified by other non invasive criteria such as cross sectional imaging showing collaterals, or liver stiffness and platelet thresholds that have been previously validated. By restricting intervention to those with large varices and offering only EVL, we miss the opportunity to intervene earlier and to a broader group that would benefit from this treatment.

 

Comprehensive Protection Without Repeated Endoscopies

Once on an appropriate NSBB dose, patients are protected against variceal bleeding (at least as effectively as EVL). This eliminates the need for repeated surveillance endoscopies to identify and treat large varices in otherwise compensated patients.

Better Tolerated and – In Many Cases – Overlaps With Existing Medication List! 

While overtreatment is a concern, regular endoscopies every two years are also burdensome. Many patients already need beta blockers for cardiac conditions such as atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease or hypertension. Carvedilol, in particular, offers dual benefit for both hepatologists and cardiologists.

It is important to emphasize that these arguments apply to compensated cirrhosis. In decompensated disease, the approach changes. After a variceal bleed, both NSBBs and EVL are required for secondary prophylaxis. In patients with prior ascites but no variceal bleed, the benefit of NSBBs is less pronounced since decompensation has already occurred. In this setting, NSBBs can still be used selectively, but only if systolic blood pressure remains above 90 mmHg.

The evidence supporting NSBBs over EVL in compensated cirrhosis is not perfect, but few things in medicine are. Given current data, NSBBs should be the first line therapy in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH. Once a patient is on an appropriate and tolerated NSBB dose, routine endoscopic surveillance is unnecessary. Endoscopy should be reserved for those who cannot tolerate NSBBs, in whom EVL is then indicated if large varices are present.

Dr. Rabiee is based at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. She has no disclosures in regard to this article.

Rethinking Screening and Surveillance in Barrett’s Esophagus: Navigating Controversies and Nuances

BY TAREK SAWAS, MD, MPH

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Despite our comprehensive guidelines, many of the day-to-day decisions still rely on clinical judgment and honest conversations with patients. This article explores common scenarios in which management decisions are nuanced and the right answer remains debatable.

Irregular Z-Line/Ultrashort Segment BE: Leave Or Watch It?

Few findings provoke more confusion than irregular Z-line or intestinal metaplasia (IM) < 1 cm at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). For years, we have debated whether these subtle changes represent a precursor to EAC or simply a benign variant. We have wrestled with how to handle these cases from whether we should take biopsies to how to perform surveillance.

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline suggests that irregular Z-lines should not be routinely biopsied or surveyed. Similarly, the upcoming American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) surveillance guideline suggests against surveillance of IM<1 cm citing the low individual annual risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC of 0.23% per year which is lower than that of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). However, this is not the entire picture. 

Despite the low per-patient risk, IM<1cm is highly prevalent with columnar mucosa observed in approximately 15% of patients undergoing upper endoscopy. This paradox is unsettling. While any one patient with IM<1 cm is unlikely to progress to EAC, the group accounts for a meaningful share of the EAC burden. Some experts have argued that this justifies routine biopsy and surveillance in all patients with visible columnar mucosa regardless of length. However, this approach risks overwhelming our surveillance infrastructure. 

A recent decision modeling analysis suggested that at the lowest progression rates, either no surveillance or one-time endoscopy can be considered. Based on these data, I do not regularly biopsy ultrashort segments unless the mucosa appears suspicious. In those with IM<1 cm detected during a high-quality endoscopic exam, no follow-up is needed. However, if the exam is suboptimal, I perform a 1-time high-quality repeat exam. If there is no evidence of dysplasia then I do not pursue any further surveillance. 

 

The One-Year Follow-Up Endoscopy: Is It Necessary?

Another controversy is the one-year follow-up endoscopy after an initial diagnosis of NDBE. Proponents of this approach cite the high proportion of post endoscopy esophageal neoplasia and cancer (PEEN/PEEC) detected in the first year after diagnosis (missed HGD/EAC). In fact, PEEN account for about a quarter of all HGD/EAC cases diagnosed during surveillance.

While this approach might mitigate PEEN/PEEC risk, it may not be necessary if the index endoscopy is high quality. To ensure high quality exams, several best practices have been proposed including:

• Use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye based)
• Appropriate inspection time (1 minute per cm of circumferential BE)
• Accurate documentation using the Prague criteria
• Adherence to the Seattle protocol with additional targeted biopsies

If the index endoscopy meets these quality metrics, I typically do not bring the patient back at one year. However, if the exam quality is in question, then I repeat it at one year to establish a reliable baseline and rule out prevalent neoplasia.

 

Surveillance In NDBE: After BOSS, Do We Rethink Everything?

The recently published BOSS trial (Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Study) has reignited the debate over the value of endoscopic surveillance in NDBE. In this study, 3,453 patients with NDBE across the UK were randomized to either surveillance endoscopy every two years or endoscopy only as clinically indicated. After a median follow-up of 12.8 years, the trial found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.

While these findings are important, they should be interpreted with caution. First, the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, is not optimal for evaluating surveillance for EAC. Surveillance is not intended to reduce all-cause mortality but rather to reduce EAC–related mortality. Second, a substantial number of patients in the no surveillance group still underwent endoscopy at intervals that were not meaningfully different from those in the surveillance group. If both groups receive similar exposure to endoscopy, the comparison loses power. Lastly, the trial was underpowered due to overestimation of progression risk during its initial design. As we have since learned, the risk of progression of NDBE is lower than originally assumed. 

So where do we stand now? For me, the BOSS trial does not negate the value of surveillance. it reminds us that a one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient, and our strategy must be risk based. For low-risk individuals, particularly older adults with short-segment NDBE, surveillance may offer little benefit. But in healthier, younger patients with longer segments or additional risk factors, surveillance remains an essential tool for early neoplasia detection.

 

When to Stop Surveillance

Perhaps the most under-discussed point is when to stop surveillance. Existing guidelines do not account for competing mortality risks unrelated to EAC or provide specific recommendations regarding cessation of surveillance. The desired benefits of surveillance likely diminish with advanced age and greater comorbidity because of lower life expectancy and ineligibility for definitive therapy for EAC.

A recent modeling study found that the optimal ages for last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years for men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity respectively and 75, 73, 73, and 69 years for women. In my practice, I discuss surveillance cessation in patients older than 75 based on their comorbidities. If the risk of progression is outweighed by the risk of the procedure or by the reality of limited life expectancy, we should not hesitate to consider surveillance cessation. 

In summary, high-quality endoscopic exam in appropriately selected patients remains the cornerstone of BE surveillance. A more personalized, risk-based approach is needed taking into account competing comorbidities. Emerging technology through risk stratification tools such as biomarkers and artificial intelligence may refine our approach and help address the current limitations.

Dr. Sawas is based at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.

Dear colleagues,

In the dynamic field of medicine, long-held practices are being reevaluated in light of new evidence and evolving standards of practice. In this issue of Perspectives, we present two thoughtful contributions that discuss changes in the way we approach esophageal varices and Barrett’s esophagus.

Dr. Anahita Rabiee discusses the importance of prioritizing non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) over endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Drawing on data from the PREDESCI trial and real-world experience, she argues that NSBB address the upstream driver—portal hypertension—more broadly and effectively than EVL. In a complementary piece, Dr. Tarek Sawas explores the nuanced landscape of screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus. From how to manage irregular Z-lines, to rethinking the need for 1-year follow-up endoscopies and interpreting the implications of the BOSS trial, Dr. Sawas advocates for a more personalized, risk-based approach. 

We hope these perspectives spark dialogue and reflection in your own practice. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN. 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Choose NSBBs, Not EVL, in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis

BY ANAHITA RABIEE, MD, MHS

I strongly favor the use of non selective beta blockers (NSBBs) in patients with compensated cirrhosis, rather than endoscopy and esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) for primary prophylaxis.

Since the results of PREDESCI trial (β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH)) were published in 2019, there has been much debate on the role of screening endoscopy and EVL for primary prophylaxis. While many argue that a single randomized trial should not overturn long standing practice, several compelling reasons convince me to choose NSBBs, when possible.

Recent guidance from major liver societies now recommends NSBBs as first line therapy for CSPH. Yet, adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent.

Here is why I believe NSBB represent a better solution:

 

Treating Upstream, Not Just a Local Treatment

NSBBs such as propranolol and nadolol decrease portal pressure by decreasing portal venous inflow through β1 and β2 adrenergic blockade. Carvedilol is often preferred given its additional α1 adrenergic blocking activity making it the most effective one in decreasing the portal pressure. Therefore, NSBBs address the upstream driver of decompensation by decreasing portal pressures.

EVL, in contrast, is a local fix that only prevents variceal bleeding. Ascites, not variceal bleeding, is the most common initial decompensating event and is associated with high mortality. Preventing all forms of decompensation is clearly preferable to preventing just one.

 

Broader Eligibility, More Patients Benefit

CSPH is defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)>10 mmHg, the threshold where increased portal venous inflow secondary to splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulation drives the increase in portal hypertension. This threshold has been shown to strongly predict decompensation in patients with compensated disease.

While all patients with varices have CSPH, not all patients with CSPH have varices. They can be identified by other non invasive criteria such as cross sectional imaging showing collaterals, or liver stiffness and platelet thresholds that have been previously validated. By restricting intervention to those with large varices and offering only EVL, we miss the opportunity to intervene earlier and to a broader group that would benefit from this treatment.

 

Comprehensive Protection Without Repeated Endoscopies

Once on an appropriate NSBB dose, patients are protected against variceal bleeding (at least as effectively as EVL). This eliminates the need for repeated surveillance endoscopies to identify and treat large varices in otherwise compensated patients.

Better Tolerated and – In Many Cases – Overlaps With Existing Medication List! 

While overtreatment is a concern, regular endoscopies every two years are also burdensome. Many patients already need beta blockers for cardiac conditions such as atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease or hypertension. Carvedilol, in particular, offers dual benefit for both hepatologists and cardiologists.

It is important to emphasize that these arguments apply to compensated cirrhosis. In decompensated disease, the approach changes. After a variceal bleed, both NSBBs and EVL are required for secondary prophylaxis. In patients with prior ascites but no variceal bleed, the benefit of NSBBs is less pronounced since decompensation has already occurred. In this setting, NSBBs can still be used selectively, but only if systolic blood pressure remains above 90 mmHg.

The evidence supporting NSBBs over EVL in compensated cirrhosis is not perfect, but few things in medicine are. Given current data, NSBBs should be the first line therapy in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH. Once a patient is on an appropriate and tolerated NSBB dose, routine endoscopic surveillance is unnecessary. Endoscopy should be reserved for those who cannot tolerate NSBBs, in whom EVL is then indicated if large varices are present.

Dr. Rabiee is based at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. She has no disclosures in regard to this article.

Rethinking Screening and Surveillance in Barrett’s Esophagus: Navigating Controversies and Nuances

BY TAREK SAWAS, MD, MPH

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Despite our comprehensive guidelines, many of the day-to-day decisions still rely on clinical judgment and honest conversations with patients. This article explores common scenarios in which management decisions are nuanced and the right answer remains debatable.

Irregular Z-Line/Ultrashort Segment BE: Leave Or Watch It?

Few findings provoke more confusion than irregular Z-line or intestinal metaplasia (IM) < 1 cm at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). For years, we have debated whether these subtle changes represent a precursor to EAC or simply a benign variant. We have wrestled with how to handle these cases from whether we should take biopsies to how to perform surveillance.

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline suggests that irregular Z-lines should not be routinely biopsied or surveyed. Similarly, the upcoming American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) surveillance guideline suggests against surveillance of IM<1 cm citing the low individual annual risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC of 0.23% per year which is lower than that of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). However, this is not the entire picture. 

Despite the low per-patient risk, IM<1cm is highly prevalent with columnar mucosa observed in approximately 15% of patients undergoing upper endoscopy. This paradox is unsettling. While any one patient with IM<1 cm is unlikely to progress to EAC, the group accounts for a meaningful share of the EAC burden. Some experts have argued that this justifies routine biopsy and surveillance in all patients with visible columnar mucosa regardless of length. However, this approach risks overwhelming our surveillance infrastructure. 

A recent decision modeling analysis suggested that at the lowest progression rates, either no surveillance or one-time endoscopy can be considered. Based on these data, I do not regularly biopsy ultrashort segments unless the mucosa appears suspicious. In those with IM<1 cm detected during a high-quality endoscopic exam, no follow-up is needed. However, if the exam is suboptimal, I perform a 1-time high-quality repeat exam. If there is no evidence of dysplasia then I do not pursue any further surveillance. 

 

The One-Year Follow-Up Endoscopy: Is It Necessary?

Another controversy is the one-year follow-up endoscopy after an initial diagnosis of NDBE. Proponents of this approach cite the high proportion of post endoscopy esophageal neoplasia and cancer (PEEN/PEEC) detected in the first year after diagnosis (missed HGD/EAC). In fact, PEEN account for about a quarter of all HGD/EAC cases diagnosed during surveillance.

While this approach might mitigate PEEN/PEEC risk, it may not be necessary if the index endoscopy is high quality. To ensure high quality exams, several best practices have been proposed including:

• Use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye based)
• Appropriate inspection time (1 minute per cm of circumferential BE)
• Accurate documentation using the Prague criteria
• Adherence to the Seattle protocol with additional targeted biopsies

If the index endoscopy meets these quality metrics, I typically do not bring the patient back at one year. However, if the exam quality is in question, then I repeat it at one year to establish a reliable baseline and rule out prevalent neoplasia.

 

Surveillance In NDBE: After BOSS, Do We Rethink Everything?

The recently published BOSS trial (Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Study) has reignited the debate over the value of endoscopic surveillance in NDBE. In this study, 3,453 patients with NDBE across the UK were randomized to either surveillance endoscopy every two years or endoscopy only as clinically indicated. After a median follow-up of 12.8 years, the trial found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.

While these findings are important, they should be interpreted with caution. First, the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, is not optimal for evaluating surveillance for EAC. Surveillance is not intended to reduce all-cause mortality but rather to reduce EAC–related mortality. Second, a substantial number of patients in the no surveillance group still underwent endoscopy at intervals that were not meaningfully different from those in the surveillance group. If both groups receive similar exposure to endoscopy, the comparison loses power. Lastly, the trial was underpowered due to overestimation of progression risk during its initial design. As we have since learned, the risk of progression of NDBE is lower than originally assumed. 

So where do we stand now? For me, the BOSS trial does not negate the value of surveillance. it reminds us that a one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient, and our strategy must be risk based. For low-risk individuals, particularly older adults with short-segment NDBE, surveillance may offer little benefit. But in healthier, younger patients with longer segments or additional risk factors, surveillance remains an essential tool for early neoplasia detection.

 

When to Stop Surveillance

Perhaps the most under-discussed point is when to stop surveillance. Existing guidelines do not account for competing mortality risks unrelated to EAC or provide specific recommendations regarding cessation of surveillance. The desired benefits of surveillance likely diminish with advanced age and greater comorbidity because of lower life expectancy and ineligibility for definitive therapy for EAC.

A recent modeling study found that the optimal ages for last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years for men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity respectively and 75, 73, 73, and 69 years for women. In my practice, I discuss surveillance cessation in patients older than 75 based on their comorbidities. If the risk of progression is outweighed by the risk of the procedure or by the reality of limited life expectancy, we should not hesitate to consider surveillance cessation. 

In summary, high-quality endoscopic exam in appropriately selected patients remains the cornerstone of BE surveillance. A more personalized, risk-based approach is needed taking into account competing comorbidities. Emerging technology through risk stratification tools such as biomarkers and artificial intelligence may refine our approach and help address the current limitations.

Dr. Sawas is based at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.

Dear colleagues,

In the dynamic field of medicine, long-held practices are being reevaluated in light of new evidence and evolving standards of practice. In this issue of Perspectives, we present two thoughtful contributions that discuss changes in the way we approach esophageal varices and Barrett’s esophagus.

Dr. Anahita Rabiee discusses the importance of prioritizing non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) over endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Drawing on data from the PREDESCI trial and real-world experience, she argues that NSBB address the upstream driver—portal hypertension—more broadly and effectively than EVL. In a complementary piece, Dr. Tarek Sawas explores the nuanced landscape of screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus. From how to manage irregular Z-lines, to rethinking the need for 1-year follow-up endoscopies and interpreting the implications of the BOSS trial, Dr. Sawas advocates for a more personalized, risk-based approach. 

We hope these perspectives spark dialogue and reflection in your own practice. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN. 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Choose NSBBs, Not EVL, in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis

BY ANAHITA RABIEE, MD, MHS

I strongly favor the use of non selective beta blockers (NSBBs) in patients with compensated cirrhosis, rather than endoscopy and esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) for primary prophylaxis.

Since the results of PREDESCI trial (β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH)) were published in 2019, there has been much debate on the role of screening endoscopy and EVL for primary prophylaxis. While many argue that a single randomized trial should not overturn long standing practice, several compelling reasons convince me to choose NSBBs, when possible.

Recent guidance from major liver societies now recommends NSBBs as first line therapy for CSPH. Yet, adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent.

Here is why I believe NSBB represent a better solution:

 

Treating Upstream, Not Just a Local Treatment

NSBBs such as propranolol and nadolol decrease portal pressure by decreasing portal venous inflow through β1 and β2 adrenergic blockade. Carvedilol is often preferred given its additional α1 adrenergic blocking activity making it the most effective one in decreasing the portal pressure. Therefore, NSBBs address the upstream driver of decompensation by decreasing portal pressures.

EVL, in contrast, is a local fix that only prevents variceal bleeding. Ascites, not variceal bleeding, is the most common initial decompensating event and is associated with high mortality. Preventing all forms of decompensation is clearly preferable to preventing just one.

 

Broader Eligibility, More Patients Benefit

CSPH is defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)>10 mmHg, the threshold where increased portal venous inflow secondary to splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulation drives the increase in portal hypertension. This threshold has been shown to strongly predict decompensation in patients with compensated disease.

While all patients with varices have CSPH, not all patients with CSPH have varices. They can be identified by other non invasive criteria such as cross sectional imaging showing collaterals, or liver stiffness and platelet thresholds that have been previously validated. By restricting intervention to those with large varices and offering only EVL, we miss the opportunity to intervene earlier and to a broader group that would benefit from this treatment.

 

Comprehensive Protection Without Repeated Endoscopies

Once on an appropriate NSBB dose, patients are protected against variceal bleeding (at least as effectively as EVL). This eliminates the need for repeated surveillance endoscopies to identify and treat large varices in otherwise compensated patients.

Better Tolerated and – In Many Cases – Overlaps With Existing Medication List! 

While overtreatment is a concern, regular endoscopies every two years are also burdensome. Many patients already need beta blockers for cardiac conditions such as atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease or hypertension. Carvedilol, in particular, offers dual benefit for both hepatologists and cardiologists.

It is important to emphasize that these arguments apply to compensated cirrhosis. In decompensated disease, the approach changes. After a variceal bleed, both NSBBs and EVL are required for secondary prophylaxis. In patients with prior ascites but no variceal bleed, the benefit of NSBBs is less pronounced since decompensation has already occurred. In this setting, NSBBs can still be used selectively, but only if systolic blood pressure remains above 90 mmHg.

The evidence supporting NSBBs over EVL in compensated cirrhosis is not perfect, but few things in medicine are. Given current data, NSBBs should be the first line therapy in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH. Once a patient is on an appropriate and tolerated NSBB dose, routine endoscopic surveillance is unnecessary. Endoscopy should be reserved for those who cannot tolerate NSBBs, in whom EVL is then indicated if large varices are present.

Dr. Rabiee is based at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. She has no disclosures in regard to this article.

Rethinking Screening and Surveillance in Barrett’s Esophagus: Navigating Controversies and Nuances

BY TAREK SAWAS, MD, MPH

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Despite our comprehensive guidelines, many of the day-to-day decisions still rely on clinical judgment and honest conversations with patients. This article explores common scenarios in which management decisions are nuanced and the right answer remains debatable.

Irregular Z-Line/Ultrashort Segment BE: Leave Or Watch It?

Few findings provoke more confusion than irregular Z-line or intestinal metaplasia (IM) < 1 cm at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). For years, we have debated whether these subtle changes represent a precursor to EAC or simply a benign variant. We have wrestled with how to handle these cases from whether we should take biopsies to how to perform surveillance.

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline suggests that irregular Z-lines should not be routinely biopsied or surveyed. Similarly, the upcoming American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) surveillance guideline suggests against surveillance of IM<1 cm citing the low individual annual risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC of 0.23% per year which is lower than that of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). However, this is not the entire picture. 

Despite the low per-patient risk, IM<1cm is highly prevalent with columnar mucosa observed in approximately 15% of patients undergoing upper endoscopy. This paradox is unsettling. While any one patient with IM<1 cm is unlikely to progress to EAC, the group accounts for a meaningful share of the EAC burden. Some experts have argued that this justifies routine biopsy and surveillance in all patients with visible columnar mucosa regardless of length. However, this approach risks overwhelming our surveillance infrastructure. 

A recent decision modeling analysis suggested that at the lowest progression rates, either no surveillance or one-time endoscopy can be considered. Based on these data, I do not regularly biopsy ultrashort segments unless the mucosa appears suspicious. In those with IM<1 cm detected during a high-quality endoscopic exam, no follow-up is needed. However, if the exam is suboptimal, I perform a 1-time high-quality repeat exam. If there is no evidence of dysplasia then I do not pursue any further surveillance. 

 

The One-Year Follow-Up Endoscopy: Is It Necessary?

Another controversy is the one-year follow-up endoscopy after an initial diagnosis of NDBE. Proponents of this approach cite the high proportion of post endoscopy esophageal neoplasia and cancer (PEEN/PEEC) detected in the first year after diagnosis (missed HGD/EAC). In fact, PEEN account for about a quarter of all HGD/EAC cases diagnosed during surveillance.

While this approach might mitigate PEEN/PEEC risk, it may not be necessary if the index endoscopy is high quality. To ensure high quality exams, several best practices have been proposed including:

• Use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye based)
• Appropriate inspection time (1 minute per cm of circumferential BE)
• Accurate documentation using the Prague criteria
• Adherence to the Seattle protocol with additional targeted biopsies

If the index endoscopy meets these quality metrics, I typically do not bring the patient back at one year. However, if the exam quality is in question, then I repeat it at one year to establish a reliable baseline and rule out prevalent neoplasia.

 

Surveillance In NDBE: After BOSS, Do We Rethink Everything?

The recently published BOSS trial (Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Study) has reignited the debate over the value of endoscopic surveillance in NDBE. In this study, 3,453 patients with NDBE across the UK were randomized to either surveillance endoscopy every two years or endoscopy only as clinically indicated. After a median follow-up of 12.8 years, the trial found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.

While these findings are important, they should be interpreted with caution. First, the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, is not optimal for evaluating surveillance for EAC. Surveillance is not intended to reduce all-cause mortality but rather to reduce EAC–related mortality. Second, a substantial number of patients in the no surveillance group still underwent endoscopy at intervals that were not meaningfully different from those in the surveillance group. If both groups receive similar exposure to endoscopy, the comparison loses power. Lastly, the trial was underpowered due to overestimation of progression risk during its initial design. As we have since learned, the risk of progression of NDBE is lower than originally assumed. 

So where do we stand now? For me, the BOSS trial does not negate the value of surveillance. it reminds us that a one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient, and our strategy must be risk based. For low-risk individuals, particularly older adults with short-segment NDBE, surveillance may offer little benefit. But in healthier, younger patients with longer segments or additional risk factors, surveillance remains an essential tool for early neoplasia detection.

 

When to Stop Surveillance

Perhaps the most under-discussed point is when to stop surveillance. Existing guidelines do not account for competing mortality risks unrelated to EAC or provide specific recommendations regarding cessation of surveillance. The desired benefits of surveillance likely diminish with advanced age and greater comorbidity because of lower life expectancy and ineligibility for definitive therapy for EAC.

A recent modeling study found that the optimal ages for last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years for men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity respectively and 75, 73, 73, and 69 years for women. In my practice, I discuss surveillance cessation in patients older than 75 based on their comorbidities. If the risk of progression is outweighed by the risk of the procedure or by the reality of limited life expectancy, we should not hesitate to consider surveillance cessation. 

In summary, high-quality endoscopic exam in appropriately selected patients remains the cornerstone of BE surveillance. A more personalized, risk-based approach is needed taking into account competing comorbidities. Emerging technology through risk stratification tools such as biomarkers and artificial intelligence may refine our approach and help address the current limitations.

Dr. Sawas is based at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.