OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinicopathologic characteristics of children with Schatzki ring and to determine if Schatzki ring is associated with eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: The authors report 18 adolescents with radiographically diagnosed Schatzki ring (SR). Their clinical and histologic characteristics were reviewed in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 15.8 +/- 0.8 years and mean duration of symptoms was 2.6 +/- 0.4 years. By histologic criteria, two groups of patients were defined. Eight had clinical and histologic criteria of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) and 10 of peptic esophagitis. There were no differences in the symptoms or radiographic findings in the two groups. The SR was not identified by endoscopy in any EE patient and was identified in 70% of peptic esophagitis patients. Grossly apparent mucosal features associated with EE were significantly more common in those with EE. Those with peptic esophagitis had a significantly higher acid exposure than did those with EE (12.6 +/- 2.9 v 2.0 +/- 1.1%; P < 0.01) by esophageal pH probe. Patients with peptic esophagitis responded to proton pump inhibitors and/or dilatation, whereas those with EE did not have good response and required specific therapy for EE. CONCLUSIONS: EE may play a role in the pathogenesis of some patients with SR.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinicopathologic characteristics of children with Schatzki ring and to determine if Schatzki ring is associated with eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: The authors report 18 adolescents with radiographically diagnosed Schatzki ring (SR). Their clinical and histologic characteristics were reviewed in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 15.8 +/- 0.8 years and mean duration of symptoms was 2.6 +/- 0.4 years. By histologic criteria, two groups of patients were defined. Eight had clinical and histologic criteria of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) and 10 of peptic esophagitis. There were no differences in the symptoms or radiographic findings in the two groups. The SR was not identified by endoscopy in any EE patient and was identified in 70% of peptic esophagitispatients. Grossly apparent mucosal features associated with EE were significantly more common in those with EE. Those with peptic esophagitis had a significantly higher acid exposure than did those with EE (12.6 +/- 2.9 v 2.0 +/- 1.1%; P < 0.01) by esophageal pH probe. Patients with peptic esophagitis responded to proton pump inhibitors and/or dilatation, whereas those with EE did not have good response and required specific therapy for EE. CONCLUSIONS: EE may play a role in the pathogenesis of some patients with SR.