4.7 Article

Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis at the Time of Esophageal Food Impaction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12113768

Keywords

upper endoscopy; esophageal diseases; esophagitis; food bolus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates physicians' practice patterns at the time of esophageal food impactions (EFI) and finds that endoscopists uncommonly take esophageal biopsies, which may delay the diagnosis and treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE).
Background: Esophageal food impactions (EFI) often precede a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE). Current guidelines suggest obtaining esophageal biopsies upon suspicion of EOE, treating with proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and repeating esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). This study was conducted to determine provider practice patterns with these mentioned recommendations at the time of EFI. Methods: In this retrospective study, key outcomes were the proportion of patients who had EOE mucosal biopsies, EOE diagnosis, PPI initiation, and recommendations and completions of repeat EGD. Differences in outcomes among age, sex, race, off-hours time of procedure, and trainee involvement were examined. EOE diagnosis predictors were explored with logistic regression. Results: Twenty-nine percent of the patients had esophageal biopsies taken at the time of index EGD (iEGD). Sixteen patients were diagnosed with EOE at the time of index EFI, while fourteen patients were diagnosed on subsequent EGDs. Among those diagnosed with EOE at iEGD, 94% were placed on PPI. Of patients with confirmed EOE on index biopsy, 63% of patients were recommended repeat EGD, of which 50% completed it within 90 days. Older age was protective of EOE diagnosis while no GERD history and endoscopist suspicion of EOE predicted diagnosis of EOE. Conclusions: Endoscopists uncommonly take biopsies at the time of EFI, which may delay diagnosis and treatment of EOE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available