scholarly journals PTH-65 Eosinophilic oesophagitis is often not excluded in emergency food-bolus obstructionpresentations – a missed opportunity

Author(s):  
Dominic King ◽  
Samuel Smethurst ◽  
Rohan Aggarwal ◽  
Dominic King ◽  
Nigel Trudgill
Gut ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A313.3-A314
Author(s):  
V Mahesh ◽  
R Holloway ◽  
Q N Nguyen

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 1032-1034
Author(s):  
Dane Cook ◽  
Alkesh Zala ◽  
Steven Bollipo ◽  
Michael D. E. Potter ◽  
Marjorie M. Walker ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (7) ◽  
pp. 936-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Philpott ◽  
S. Nandurkar ◽  
S. G. Royce ◽  
P. R. Gibson

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yevedzo Ntuli ◽  
Isabelle Bough ◽  
Michael Wilson

BackgroundEosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, inflammatory condition of the oesophagus, characterised by intermittent dysphagia, food bolus obstruction (FBO) and histologically proven, eosinophil-mediated inflammation. EoE is identified in up to 50% of FBO presentations.ObjectiveTo evaluate the management of patients presenting with FBO to our centre against current clinical guidelines.DesignA retrospective analysis of acute FBO was performed between January 2008 and August 2014. Patients were identified using the ICD 10 code T18.1, ‘foreign body in oesophagus’ in their electronic discharge document. Data were collected on admitting specialty, previous FBO, endoscopy findings, biopsy sites and findings, eosinophil count and diagnosis of EoE.Results310 acute episodes of FBO were included in the final study cohort. 202 (65.2%) flexible oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) were performed, with 50 (34.5%) of those occurring in those admitted under ENT (n=145), versus 28 (93.3%) and 124 (91.9%) in general medicine (n=30) and surgery (n=135), respectively. 80 (39.6%) had oesophageal biopsies taken, and 21 novel diagnoses of EoE were made (26.3% biopsy-proven rate). Five (23.8%) of the novel diagnoses had a formal eosinophil count included in the histopathology report, and eight (38.1%) had up to three previous OGDs that had not diagnosed their condition of EoE.ConclusionOur study highlights wide variation in adherence to the guidelines for the management of FBO depending on admitting specialty. We advocate an FBO protocol involving single specialty management, flexible OGD, ≥6 biopsies from the upper and lower oesophagus, and standardisation of oesophageal biopsy reports with a formal eosinophil count.


2009 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Harris ◽  
S Mitton ◽  
S Chong ◽  
H Daya

AbstractIntroduction:The prevalence of eosinophilic oesophagitis is increasing. A Pubmed search for ‘eosinophilic oesophagitis’ and ‘eosinophilic esophagitis’ yielded 345 publications since 1976. Only seven were in otolaryngology journals.1–7Patients typically present with dysphagia, vomiting, dyspepsia or food impaction and are therefore usually referred to a paediatric gastroenterologist; otolaryngologists are not usually involved in management. A missed diagnosis may result in oesophageal stricture.Methods:Two patients, aged two and four years, were referred to the paediatric otolaryngology department with intermittent upper oesophageal food impaction. A paediatric gastroenterologist was involved in the investigation. Histological examination of oesophageal biopsies demonstrated changes consistent with eosinophilic oesophagitis.Results:Both patients were expediently diagnosed, investigated and managed.Conclusion:A diagnosis of eosinophilic oesophagitis must be considered in patients presenting with food bolus impaction. Early involvement of a paediatric gastroenterology team in the diagnosis is recommended in children presenting with oesophageal symptoms, in order to avoid delayed diagnosis.


Crisis ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 102-104
Author(s):  
John F. Connolly
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document