4.7 Article

Prevalence and predictive factors of eosinophilic esophagitis in patients presenting with dysphagia: A prospective study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 12, Pages 2627-2632

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01512.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is an increasingly recognized cause of dysphagia. We prospectively assessed the prevalence of EE using midesophageal biopsies in patients presenting with no endoscopically evident cause of dysphagia. We also aimed to determine the clinical and endoscopic factors predictive of EE in outpatients undergoing endoscopy for dysphagia. METHODS: Outpatients (18-60 yr of age) undergoing endoscopy for dysphagia at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between June 2005 and June 2006 were enrolled. Patients completed the validated Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire (MDQ). Biopsies were obtained from the midesophagus if there was no endoscopically evident cause of dysphagia or there were endoscopic findings suggestive of EE. EE was defined as the presence of > 20 eosinophils/high-power field. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of EE. RESULTS: Of 376 patients enrolled, 238 (63%) completed the MDQ and 222 (59%) had midesophageal biopsies; 33 (15%, 95% Cl 6%-12%) had EE by biopsy. Ten of 102 (9.8%) patients who appeared endoscopically normal had EE by biopsy, while 8 of 21 (38%) patients with endoscopic changes suggestive of EE had EE on biopsy. Predictors of EE were younger age, endoscopic features suggestive of EE, absence of use of proton pump inhibitors, and a history of any food impaction for greater than 5 min. CONCLUSIONS: Midesophageal biopsies from normal-appearing mucosa should be obtained in all patients with unexplained solid food dysphagia; this may diagnose EE in about one in 10 cases.

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