Literature DB >> 29533267

Emergency Computed Tomography Predicts Caustic Esophageal Stricture Formation.

Matthieu Bruzzi1, Mircea Chirica1,2, Matthieu Resche-Rigon3, Helene Corte1, Thibault Voron1, Emile Sarfati1, Anne-Marie Zagdanski4, Pierre Cattan1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopy is the best predictor of stricture formation after caustic ingestion.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the accuracy of emergency computed tomography (CT) and endoscopy in predicting risks of esophageal stricture.
METHODS: We describe a CT classification of esophageal caustic injuries: Grade I show normal esophagus; Grade IIa display internal enhancement of the esophageal mucosa and enhancement of the outer wall conferring a "target" aspect; Grade IIb present as a fine rim of external esophageal wall enhancement. In 152 patients (56 males, median age 45) who underwent esophageal preservation after caustic ingestion we compared the accuracy of the CT and endoscopic (Zargar) classifications in predicting esophageal stricture.
RESULTS: On endoscopy esophageal injuries were classified as grade 1 (n = 50; 33%), grade 2a (n = 11; 7%), grade 2b (n = 19; 13%), grade 3a (n = 14; 9%), and grade 3b (n = 58; 38%). On CT, 47 (31%) patients had grade I, 47 (31%) had grade IIa and 58 (38%) had grade IIb esophageal injuries. Fifty-six (37%) patients developed esophageal strictures. The risk of esophageal stricture formation was 0%, 17%, and 83%, for grade I, IIa, and IIb CT injuries and 0, 0, 28, 50, and 76% for endoscopic grade 1, 2a, 2b, and 3a and 3b injuries, respectively. ROC curve analysis at 120 days after ingestion showed that CT outperformed endoscopy in predicting stricture formation (AUC: 85.1 [95% CI, 74.9-95.3] vs 77.8 [95% CI, 66.5-89.0], P = 0.047) and did just as well as a combined CT-endoscopy algorithm (AUC: 85.8 [95% CI, 76.5-95.0] vs 85.1 [95% CI, 74.9-95.3], P = 0.73).
CONCLUSION: Emergency CT outperforms endoscopy in predicting esophageal stricture formation after caustic ingestion. Emergency endoscopy evaluation after caustic ingestion is not indispensable.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 29533267     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002732

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  4 in total

1.  Caustic ingestion: CT findings of esophageal injuries and thoracic complications.

Authors:  Giuseppe Cutaia; Marianna Messina; Sara Rubino; Elisabetta Reitano; Leonardo Salvaggio; Ilenia Costanza; Francesco Agnello; Ludovico La Grutta; Massimo Midiri; Giuseppe Salvaggio; Rosalia Gargano
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2021-03-08

2.  Evaluation of a Diagnostic and Management Algorithm for Adult Caustic Ingestion: New Concept of Severity Stratification and Patient Categorization.

Authors:  Yu-Jhou Chen; Chen-June Seak; Hao-Tsai Cheng; Chien-Cheng Chen; Tsung-Hsing Chen; Chang-Mu Sung; Chip-Jin Ng; Shih-Ching Kang; Ming-Yao Su; Sen-Yung Hsieh
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-06-17

Review 3.  Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines.

Authors:  Mircea Chirica; Michael D Kelly; Stefano Siboni; Alberto Aiolfi; Carlo Galdino Riva; Emanuele Asti; Davide Ferrari; Ari Leppäniemi; Richard P G Ten Broek; Pierre Yves Brichon; Yoram Kluger; Gustavo Pereira Fraga; Gil Frey; Nelson Adami Andreollo; Federico Coccolini; Cristina Frattini; Ernest E Moore; Osvaldo Chiara; Salomone Di Saverio; Massimo Sartelli; Dieter Weber; Luca Ansaloni; Walter Biffl; Helene Corte; Imtaz Wani; Gianluca Baiocchi; Pierre Cattan; Fausto Catena; Luigi Bonavina
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 4.  Diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal chemical burns and post-burn oesophageal stenosis.

Authors:  Piotr Obarski; Janusz Włodarczyk
Journal:  Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol       Date:  2022-01-09
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.