Original article Clinical Endoscopy| Volume 92, ISSUE 2, P259-268.e2, August 2020

Download started.


Risk factors for serious adverse events associated with multiband mucosectomy in Barrett’s esophagus: an international multicenter analysis of 3827 endoscopic resection procedures

Published:March 30, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.3842

      Background and Aims

      Multiband mucosectomy (MBM) is a widely used technique for the treatment of Barrett’s esophagus (BE). However, large multicenter studies enabling a generalizable estimation of the risk of serious adverse events, such as perforation and postprocedural bleeding, are lacking. The aim of this study was to estimate the rate of, and risk factors for, serious adverse events associated with MBM.


      In this retrospective analysis, consecutive patients who underwent MBM for treatment of BE in 14 tertiary referral centers in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia were included. Primary outcomes were perforation and postprocedural bleeding rate. Potential risk factors were identified by logistic regression.


      Between 2001 and 2016, a total of 3827 MBM procedures were performed in 2447 patients (84% male, mean age 66 years, median BE length C2M4). Perforation occurred in 17 procedures (0.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7), of which 15 could be treated endoscopically or conservatively. Female gender was an independent risk factor for perforation (odds ratio [OR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.02-7.57; P = .05). Postprocedural bleeding occurred after 35 procedures (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-1.3). The number of resections (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25; P < .001) was significantly associated with postprocedural bleeding.


      The results of this study show that MBM for BE is safe with a low risk of serious adverse events. In addition, most of the adverse events could be managed endoscopically or conservatively. The number of resections was an independent risk factor for postprocedural bleeding.


      BE (Barrett’s esophagus), CI (confidence interval), ER (endoscopic resection), IQR (interquartile range), MBM (multiband mucosectomy), OR (odds ratio)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Inoue H.
        • Takeshita K.
        • Hori H.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted panendoscope for esophagus, stomach, and colon mucosal lesions.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 1993; 39: 58-62
        • Pouw R.E.
        • van Vilsteren F.G.I.
        • Peters F.P.
        • et al.
        Randomized trial on endoscopic resection-cap versus multiband mucosectomy for piecemeal endoscopic resection of early Barrett’s neoplasia.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74: 35-43
        • Alvarez Herrero L.
        • Pouw R.E.
        • van Vilsteren F.G.
        • et al.
        Safety and efficacy of multiband mucosectomy in 1060 resections in Barrett’s esophagus.
        Endoscopy. 2011; 43: 177-183
        • Thomas T.
        • Singh R.
        • Ragunath K.
        Trimodal imaging-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection of early Barrett’s neoplasia.
        Surg Endosc. 2009; 23: 1609-1613
        • Bhat Y.M.
        • Furth E.E.
        • Brensinger C.M.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic resection with ligation using a multi-band mucosectomy system in Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma.
        Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2009; 2: 323-330
        • Peters F.P.
        • Kara M.A.
        • Curvers W.L.
        • et al.
        Multiband mucosectomy for endoscopic resection of Barrett’s esophagus: feasibility study with matched historical controls.
        Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 19: 311-315
        • Soehendra N.
        • Seewald S.
        • Groth S.
        • et al.
        Use of modified multiband ligator facilitates circumferential EMR in Barrett’s esophagus (with video).
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63: 847-852
        • van Buuren S.
        • Groothuis-Oudshoorn K.
        multivariate imputation by chained equations in R.
        J Stat Softw. 2011; 45: 1-67
        • van Buuren S.
        • Brand J.P.L.
        • Groothuis-Oudshoorn C.G.M.
        • et al.
        Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation.
        J Stat Comput Simul. 2006; 76: 1049-1064
        • Brand J.P.L.
        Development, implementation and evaluation of multiple imputation strategies for the statistical analysis of incomplete data sets. PhD thesis.
        Erasmus University, Rotterdam1999
        • White R.K.
        • Morris D.M.
        Diagnosis and management of esophageal perforations.
        Am Surg. 1992; 58: 112-119
        • Reeder L.B.
        • DeFilippi V.J.
        • Ferguson M.K.
        Current results of therapy for esophageal perforation.
        Am J Surg. 1995; 169: 615-617
        • Sawyer R.
        • Phillips C.
        • Vakil N.
        Short- and long-term outcome of esophageal perforation.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 1995; 41: 130-134
        • Pouw R.E.
        • Beyna T.
        • Belghazi K.
        • et al.
        A prospective multicenter study using a new multiband mucosectomy device for endoscopic resection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 88: 647-654
        • Alzoubaidi D.
        • Magee C.
        • Hamoudi R.
        • et al.
        Comparison of two multi band mucosectomy devices for endoscopic resection of Barrett’s related neoplasia (PTU-022).
        Gut. 2017; 66: A61-A62
        • Belghazi K.
        • Schölvinck D.W.
        • van Berge Homegrown M.I.
        • et al.
        Results of a two-phased clinical study evaluating a new multiband mucosectomy device for early Barrett’s neoplasia: a randomized pre-esophagectomy trial and a therapeutic pilot study.
        Surg Endosc. 2019; 33: 2864-2872
        • Shin S.J.
        • Yu J.
        • Choi J.M.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for perforation of endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric tumors [abstract].
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73: AB399
        • Kim H.J.
        • Chung H.
        • Jung D.H.
        • et al.
        Clinical outcomes of and management strategy for perforations associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection of an upper gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasm.
        Surg Endosc. 2016; 30: 5059-5067
        • Yoo J.H.
        • Shin S.J.
        • Lee K.M.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for perforation associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric lesions: emphasis on perforation type.
        Surg Endosc. 2012; 26: 2456-2464
        • Noguchi M.
        • Yano Y.
        • Kato T.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
        World J Gastroenterol. 2017; 23: 478-485
        • Hong S.N.
        • Byeon J.S.
        • Lee B.
        • et al.
        Prediction model and risk score for perforation in patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 84: 98-108
        • Yamamoto K.
        • Shimoda R.
        • Ogata S.
        • et al.
        Perforation and postoperative bleeding associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal tumors: an analysis of 398 lesions treated in saga Japan.
        Intern Med. 2018; 57: 2115-2122
        • Niikure R.
        • Yasunaga H.
        • Yamada A.
        • et al.
        Factors predicting adverse events associated with therapeutic colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia: a retrospective nationwide study in Japan.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 84: 971-982
        • Hong J.
        • Kweon S.
        • Lee J.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for procedure-related complications after endoscopic resection of colorectal laterally spreading tumors.
        Medicine. 2018; 97: 1-7
        • Mizushima T.
        • Mototsugu K.
        • Iwanaga I.
        • et al.
        Technical difficulty according to location, and risk factors for perforation, in endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors.
        Surg Endosc. 2015; 29: 133-139
        • Saito Y.
        • Uraoka T.
        • Yamaguchi Y.
        • et al.
        A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72: 1217-1225
        • Qumseya B.
        • Panossian A.M.
        • Rizk C.
        • et al.
        Predictors of esophageal stricture formation post endoscopic mucosal resection.
        Clin Endosc. 2014; 47: 155-161
        • Chung A.
        • Bourke M.J.
        • Hourigan L.F.
        • et al.
        Predictors of stricture following complete Barrett’s excision by stepwise endoscopic resection in short-segment disease: long term outcomes and predictors of stricture.
        Endoscopy. 2011; 43: 1025-1032
        • van Vilsteren F.G.
        • Pouw R.E.
        • Seewald S.
        • et al.
        Stepwise radical endoscopic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer: a multicentre randomised trial.
        Gut. 2011; 60: 765-773
        • Chadwick G.
        • Groene O.
        • Markar S.R.
        • et al.
        Systematic review comparing radiofrequency ablation and complete endoscopic resection in treating dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: a critical assessment of histologic outcomes and adverse events.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 79: 718-731