4.3 Article

Reliability of Symptoms and Endoscopic Findings for Diagnosis of Esophageal Eosinophilia in a Japanese Population

Journal

DIGESTION
Volume 90, Issue 1, Pages 49-57

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000365209

Keywords

Esophageal eosinophilia; Eosinophilic esophagitis; Endoscopy; Diagnostic utility

Funding

  1. Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for research on intractable diseases from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: The clinical characteristics of esophageal eosinophilia (EE), which is essential for diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), have not been fully clarified in a Japanese population. The aim of this study was to analyze the reliability of symptoms and endoscopic findings for diagnosing EE in Japanese individuals. Methods: We prospectively enrolled subjects who complained of esophageal symptoms suggesting EoE and/or those with endoscopic findings of suspected EoE at the outpatient clinics of 12 hospitals. Diagnostic utility was compared between the EE and non-EE groups using logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 349 patients, including 319 with symptoms and 30 with no symptoms but endoscopic findings suggesting EoE were enrolled. Of those with symptoms, 8 (2.5%) had EE, and 3 were finally diagnosed with EoE. Of those without symptoms but endoscopic findings, 4 had EE. Among 8 symptomatic patients, 7 had abnormal endoscopic findings suspicious of EoE. Although dysphagia was a major symptom in EE, none of the presenting symptoms was useful for diagnosis of EE. Among the endoscopic findings, linear furrow was the most reliable (OR = 41.583). Conclusion: EE is uncommon among patients with esophageal symptoms in Japanese individuals. The most useful endoscopic finding for diagnosis of EE was linear furrow, whereas subjective symptoms were not supportive. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available