AIMS: To study practice patterns in the management of non-obstructive dysphagia among U.S. gastroenterologists. DATA SOURCE: Endoscopic data repository from 100 U.S. gastroenterology practices during 1998-2003 (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI). METHODS: All initial esophago-gastro-duodenoscopies (EGDs) performed in adult patients between 1998 and 2003 (n = 181,261) were evaluated for demographic data, endoscopic findings, and the occurrence of esophageal dilation. A case population of 7,256 patients receiving empiric dilation for dysphagia for non-obstructive dysphagia was compared to a control population of 5764 patients with dilation for peptic strictures. RESULTS: The group of patients with empiric dilation was younger than the group of patients with peptic strictures and contained more women. Reflux symptoms and erosive esophagitis were less frequent in the empiric dilation group than in the strictures group. Empiric dilations were mostly performed using rubber bougies, whereas strictures were most frequently dilated over a guidewire. For all types of dilators, the diameters were significantly larger in empiric than stricture dilation. Repeat dilations within 1 year after the initial procedure occurred in 4% of the empiric and 13% of the stricture dilations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the dilation of peptic strictures, empiric dilation of non-obstructive dysphagia is a more common clinical practice that is performed in a different patient population and utilizes different techniques.
AIMS: To study practice patterns in the management of non-obstructive dysphagia among U.S. gastroenterologists. DATA SOURCE: Endoscopic data repository from 100 U.S. gastroenterology practices during 1998-2003 (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI). METHODS: All initial esophago-gastro-duodenoscopies (EGDs) performed in adult patients between 1998 and 2003 (n = 181,261) were evaluated for demographic data, endoscopic findings, and the occurrence of esophageal dilation. A case population of 7,256 patients receiving empiric dilation for dysphagia for non-obstructive dysphagia was compared to a control population of 5764 patients with dilation for peptic strictures. RESULTS: The group of patients with empiric dilation was younger than the group of patients with peptic strictures and contained more women. Reflux symptoms and erosive esophagitis were less frequent in the empiric dilation group than in the strictures group. Empiric dilations were mostly performed using rubber bougies, whereas strictures were most frequently dilated over a guidewire. For all types of dilators, the diameters were significantly larger in empiric than stricture dilation. Repeat dilations within 1 year after the initial procedure occurred in 4% of the empiric and 13% of the stricture dilations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the dilation of peptic strictures, empiric dilation of non-obstructive dysphagia is a more common clinical practice that is performed in a different patient population and utilizes different techniques.
Authors: James V Egan; Todd H Baron; Douglas G Adler; Raquel Davila; Douglas O Faigel; Seng-lan Gan; William K Hirota; Jonathan A Leighton; David Lichtenstein; Waqar A Qureshi; Elizabeth Rajan; Bo Shen; Marc J Zuckerman; Trina VanGuilder; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: T R DeMeester; C I Wang; J A Wernly; C A Pellegrini; A G Little; P Klementschitsch; G Bermudez; L F Johnson; D B Skinner Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1980-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Hassan Ali Al Saleh; Thomas Malikowski; Dhyanesh Arvind Patel; Ijlal Akbar Ali; Sultan Mahmood Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2022-04-10 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Priya Krishna; Laura Bomze; Wayanne Watson; Sara Yang; Brianna Crawley; Jared C Inman Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2021-06-29
Authors: Sarmed S Sami; Hasan N Haboubi; Yeng Ang; Philip Boger; Pradeep Bhandari; John de Caestecker; Helen Griffiths; Rehan Haidry; Hans-Ulrich Laasch; Praful Patel; Stuart Paterson; Krish Ragunath; Peter Watson; Peter D Siersema; Stephen E Attwood Journal: Gut Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 23.059