Bashar Qumseya1, Abraham M Panossian2, Cynthia Rizk3, David Cangemi4, Christianne Wolfsen1, Massimo Raimondo1, Timothy Woodward1, Michael B Wallace1, Herbert Wolfsen1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA. ; Mercy Gilbert Medical Center, Chandler, AZ, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA. ; Department of Family Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA. 4. Community Internal Medicine at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Stricture formation is a common complication after endoscopic mucosal resection. Predictors of stricture formation have not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational, descriptive study by using a prospective endoscopic mucosal resection database in a tertiary referral center. For each patient, we extracted the age, sex, lesion size, use of ablative therapy, and detection of esophageal strictures. The primary outcome was the presence of esophageal stricture at follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association between the primary outcome and predictors. RESULTS: Of 136 patients, 27% (n=37) had esophageal strictures. Thirty-two percent (n=44) needed endoscopic dilation to relieve dysphagia (median, 2; range, 1 to 8). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the size of the lesion excised is associated with increased odds of having a stricture (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3; p=0.01), when controlling for age, sex, and ablative modalities. Similarly, the number of lesions removed in the index procedure was associated with increased odds of developing a stricture (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 4.2; p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Stricture formation after esophageal endoscopic mucosal resection is common. Risk factors for stricture formation include large mucosal resections and the resection of multiple lesions on the initial procedure.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Stricture formation is a common complication after endoscopic mucosal resection. Predictors of stricture formation have not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational, descriptive study by using a prospective endoscopic mucosal resection database in a tertiary referral center. For each patient, we extracted the age, sex, lesion size, use of ablative therapy, and detection of esophageal strictures. The primary outcome was the presence of esophageal stricture at follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association between the primary outcome and predictors. RESULTS: Of 136 patients, 27% (n=37) had esophageal strictures. Thirty-two percent (n=44) needed endoscopic dilation to relieve dysphagia (median, 2; range, 1 to 8). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the size of the lesion excised is associated with increased odds of having a stricture (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3; p=0.01), when controlling for age, sex, and ablative modalities. Similarly, the number of lesions removed in the index procedure was associated with increased odds of developing a stricture (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 4.2; p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Stricture formation after esophageal endoscopic mucosal resection is common. Risk factors for stricture formation include large mucosal resections and the resection of multiple lesions on the initial procedure.
Authors: A Chung; M J Bourke; L F Hourigan; G Lim; A Moss; S J Williams; D McLeod; S Fanning; V Kariyawasam; K Byth Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe Journal: Gut Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Femke P Peters; Mohammed A Kara; Wilda D Rosmolen; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Kausilia K Krishnadath; J Jan B van Lanschot; Paul Fockens; Jacques J G H M Bergman Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Prateek Sharma; Bergein F Overholt; Herbert C Wolfsen; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Joseph A Galanko; Mary P Bronner; John R Goldblum; Ana E Bennett; Blair A Jobe; Glenn M Eisen; M Brian Fennerty; John G Hunter; David E Fleischer; Virender K Sharma; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Richard I Rothstein; Stuart R Gordon; Hiroshi Mashimo; Kenneth J Chang; V Raman Muthusamy; Steven A Edmundowicz; Stuart J Spechler; Ali A Siddiqui; Rhonda F Souza; Anthony Infantolino; Gary W Falk; Michael B Kimmey; Ryan D Madanick; Amitabh Chak; Charles J Lightdale Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ganapathy A Prasad; Tsung Teh Wu; Dennis A Wigle; Navtej S Buttar; Louis-Michel Wongkeesong; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Andreas Koutsoumpas; Lai Mun Wang; Adam A Bailey; Richard Gillies; Robert Marshall; Michael Booth; Bruno Sgromo; Nick Maynard; Barbara Braden Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2016-12-02
Authors: Sébastien Godat; Mariola Marx; Fabrice Caillol; Maxime Robert; Aurélie Autret; Erwan Bories; Christian Pesenti; Jean Philippe Ratone; Alain Schoepfer; Flora Poizat; Marc Giovannini Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2021-12-06