Diogo Libânio1,2, Mónica Garrido3, Filipa Jácome3, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro1,2, Isabel Pedroto2,3, Ricardo Marcos-Pinto2,3. 1. Gastroenterology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 2. CINTESIS - Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 3. Gastroenterology Department, Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes after foreign body ingestion and food impaction; to identify predictors of foreign body presence at the time of endoscopy. METHODS: A prospective study including consecutive adult patients with foreign body ingestion or suspected food impaction between May 2014 and August 2016. RESULTS: In total, 521 patients were included, 320 with foreign body ingestion and 201 with suspected food impaction. Food impaction patients were significantly older and more frequently had a history of oesophageal disease. The foreign body was encountered in the upper digestive tract in 43% of the patients with foreign body ingestion, and food impaction was confirmed in 87%. Older age (odds ratio (OR)year 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.06) and early presentation (ORfirst six hours 4.41, 95% CI 2.24-8.66) were independent predictors of foreign body presence, while a history of psychiatric disease was an independent predictor of food impaction (OR 6.69, 95% CI 1.66-26.9). Successful endoscopic treatment was achieved in more than 90% of the cases, with adverse events occurring in fewer than 5%. Foreign body forceps was the preferred device in foreign body ingestion, while retrieval basket and mobilisation were preferred in food impaction. The need to use more than one instrument was significantly higher in food impaction. CONCLUSION: Foreign bodies are encountered at endoscopy in almost half of the cases. Older age and earlier presentation are independent predictors of its presence. Given the high proportion of patients with foreign body at endoscopy and the low risk of complications, endoscopic evaluation is probably justified in the majority of cases.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes after foreign body ingestion and food impaction; to identify predictors of foreign body presence at the time of endoscopy. METHODS: A prospective study including consecutive adult patients with foreign body ingestion or suspected food impaction between May 2014 and August 2016. RESULTS: In total, 521 patients were included, 320 with foreign body ingestion and 201 with suspected food impaction. Food impaction patients were significantly older and more frequently had a history of oesophageal disease. The foreign body was encountered in the upper digestive tract in 43% of the patients with foreign body ingestion, and food impaction was confirmed in 87%. Older age (odds ratio (OR)year 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.06) and early presentation (ORfirst six hours 4.41, 95% CI 2.24-8.66) were independent predictors of foreign body presence, while a history of psychiatric disease was an independent predictor of food impaction (OR 6.69, 95% CI 1.66-26.9). Successful endoscopic treatment was achieved in more than 90% of the cases, with adverse events occurring in fewer than 5%. Foreign body forceps was the preferred device in foreign body ingestion, while retrieval basket and mobilisation were preferred in food impaction. The need to use more than one instrument was significantly higher in food impaction. CONCLUSION: Foreign bodies are encountered at endoscopy in almost half of the cases. Older age and earlier presentation are independent predictors of its presence. Given the high proportion of patients with foreign body at endoscopy and the low risk of complications, endoscopic evaluation is probably justified in the majority of cases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endoscopy; emergency; food impaction; foreign body ingestion; therapeutic endoscopy
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Bülent Erbil; Mehmet Ali Karaca; Mehmet Ali Aslaner; Zaur Ibrahimov; Mehmet Mahir Kunt; Erhan Akpinar; Mehmet Mahir Özmen Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ryan P Bodkin; Kyle A Weant; Stephanie Baker Justice; Matthew T Spencer; Nicole M Acquisto Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Pedro Magalhães-Costa; Liliana Carvalho; José Pedro Rodrigues; Maria Ana Túlio; Susana Marques; Joana Carmo; Miguel Bispo; Cristina Chagas Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-23