BACKGROUND: Esophageal strictures resulting from eosinophilic esophagitis present management challenges, and high rates of rents and perforation have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of esophageal dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis and to characterize predictors of both clinical response and complications of the procedure. DESIGN: Retrospective study of the University of North Carolina eosinophilic esophagitis database. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center. PATIENTS: Cases of eosinophilic esophagitis were defined as per consensus guidelines. INTERVENTION: Dilation with either Savary or through-the-scope balloon techniques. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Complications (deep mucosal rents, contained or free perforation, and chest pain requiring medical attention or hospitalization) and the global clinical symptom response. RESULTS: Of 130 eosinophilic esophagitis cases identified, 70 dilations (12 Savary, 58 balloon) were performed in 36 patients. Esophageal size improved from 12 to 16 mm (P < .001), with an overall symptom response rate of 83%. The only predictor of clinical response was final dilation diameter. There were 5 complications (7%): 2 deep mucosal rents and 3 episodes of chest pain. There were no perforations. There was one hospitalization for chest pain. All complications occurred in patients being treated with topical steroids, who underwent balloon dilation. Complications were associated with younger age (23 vs 42; P = .02) and more dilations (4 vs 1.7; P = .009). LIMITATIONS: Single center, retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal dilation can be performed in eosinophilic esophagitis with low rates of tears, chest pain, and hospitalization. No perforations were found in our database. The effectiveness of dilation was best when a larger esophageal caliber was achieved, but patients undergoing more procedures was associated with complications. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Esophageal strictures resulting from eosinophilic esophagitis present management challenges, and high rates of rents and perforation have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of esophageal dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis and to characterize predictors of both clinical response and complications of the procedure. DESIGN: Retrospective study of the University of North Carolina eosinophilic esophagitis database. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center. PATIENTS: Cases of eosinophilic esophagitis were defined as per consensus guidelines. INTERVENTION: Dilation with either Savary or through-the-scope balloon techniques. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Complications (deep mucosal rents, contained or free perforation, and chest pain requiring medical attention or hospitalization) and the global clinical symptom response. RESULTS: Of 130 eosinophilic esophagitis cases identified, 70 dilations (12 Savary, 58 balloon) were performed in 36 patients. Esophageal size improved from 12 to 16 mm (P < .001), with an overall symptom response rate of 83%. The only predictor of clinical response was final dilation diameter. There were 5 complications (7%): 2 deep mucosal rents and 3 episodes of chest pain. There were no perforations. There was one hospitalization for chest pain. All complications occurred in patients being treated with topical steroids, who underwent balloon dilation. Complications were associated with younger age (23 vs 42; P = .02) and more dilations (4 vs 1.7; P = .009). LIMITATIONS: Single center, retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal dilation can be performed in eosinophilic esophagitis with low rates of tears, chest pain, and hospitalization. No perforations were found in our database. The effectiveness of dilation was best when a larger esophageal caliber was achieved, but patients undergoing more procedures was associated with complications. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Daniel A Schupack; Karthik Ravi; Debra M Geno; Katrina Pierce; Kristin Mara; David A Katzka; Jeffrey A Alexander Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Raf Bisschops; Miguel Areia; Emmanuel Coron; Daniela Dobru; Bernd Kaskas; Roman Kuvaev; Oliver Pech; Krish Ragunath; Bas Weusten; Pietro Familiari; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Michal F Kaminski; Cristiano Spada; Michael Bretthauer; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Thomas M Runge; Swathi Eluri; Cary C Cotton; Caitlin M Burk; John T Woosley; Nicholas J Shaheen; Evan S Dellon Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Cary C Cotton; Daniel Erim; Swathi Eluri; Sarah H Palmer; Daniel J Green; W Asher Wolf; Thomas M Runge; Stephanie Wheeler; Nicholas J Shaheen; Evan S Dellon Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 11.382