The Yield of Endoscopy and Histology in the Evaluation of Esophageal Dysphagia: Two Referral Centers’ Experiences

Background and Objectives: The initial diagnostic test required to evaluate esophageal dysphagia is upper endoscopy (EGD) to assess the structure of the esophagus and the esophageo-gastric junction (EGJ). Taking biopsies during EGD has become a common practice in patients with dysphagia to rule out eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aims of this study were to evaluate the endoscopic findings of patients who underwent EGD for esophageal dysphagia, to assess the rate of biopsy taking from the esophagus to diagnose/exclude EoE, and to report histology outcomes of these biopsies. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter study that included individuals ≥18 years who underwent EGD due to esophageal dysphagia between the years 2015 and2020, (with no other alarm signs, such as weight loss, new iron deficiency anemia, and lymphadenopathy). We obtained data from patients’ electronic files. The endoscopy and histology findings were obtained from endoscopy reports saved in our electronic files. Results: A total of 209 patients were included in the study. The average age was 57.1 ± 17.1 years. The most common endoscopic findings were normal endoscopy in 76 patients (36.4%) and erosive esophagitis in 75 patients (35.9%). Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal malignancy were encountered in 11 patients (5.3%) and 2 patients (0.95%), respectively. Esophageal biopsies were taken in 50.2% of patients, and one patient had histological evidence of EoE (0.5%). On univariate analysis, there was a trend for association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) use and a normal EGD, but it was not statistically significant (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07–1.11, p = 0.07). Conclusions: Endoscopic findings were prevalent in dysphagia patients even when no other alarm symptoms exist. Neoplastic lesions and EOE were rare in our study.

Esophageal dysphagia pada kucing ras lokal

Dysphagia merupakan suatu manifestasi gangguan pada esofagus. Beberapa gangguan pada esofagus yang menunjukkan gejala dysphagia yaitu esophageal stricture. Tulisan ini mengevaluasi kausa gejala esophageal dysphagia pada kucing Tripod. Seekor kucing ras lokal bernama Tripod dibawa ke klinik oleh pemiliknya dengan keluhan adanya kepincangan dan luka pada kaki kanan depan. Tripod menunjukkan gejala muntah setiap kali diberi pakan pascaamputasi. Hasil pemeriksaan fisik tampak adanya massa pada leher Tripod saat diberi pakan. Citra radiografi dengan kontras barium sulfat menunjukkan adanya penyempitan pada bagian esofagus dan anterior lambung. Kucing Tripod didiagnosa mengalami esophageal dysphagia. Terapi yang diberikan tindakan suportif dengan pemberian multivitamin dan pakan yang semi cair.

149 DIFFERENCES IN TRANSABDOMINAL ULTRASONOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS AMONG PATIENTS COMPLAINING OF ESOPHAGEAL DYSPHAGIA

Dysphagia is a symptom suggestive of severe underlying pathology, although its causes include organic and non-organic disorders. A balance must be struck between the potential complications of any invasive investigation and its diagnostic utility, especially for elderly patients with dysphagia. The aim of this study was to investigate whether transabdominal ultrasonography (TUS) can differentiate among patients complaining of esophageal dysphagia including achalasia, distal esophageal spasms (DES), neoplasms involving the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) and healthy controls. Methods All patients complained of esophageal dysphagia, while healthy controls had no symptoms originating from esophagus. TUS was performed in 50 patients with achalasia, 17 DES patients, 10 patients with neoplasms, and 39 sex- and age-matched controls. All studies were performed with a 3.5 MHz real time curved array scanner and using an electronic caliper to measure esophageal wall thickness and the maximum esophageal diameter at 3 cm from EGJ. Manometric diagnoses were made based on the Chicago classification ver.3. The cutoff value of each TUS parameter was then calculated. Specificity and sensitivity in making a diagnosis of each disease were determined. Results There were significantly differences in the TUS parameters among four groups (Fig). The cutoff value of diameter of esophageal lumen to differentiate achalasia from other 3 groups was calculated as 13.1 mm (sensitivity, 0.96; specificity, 0.93), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99, and that of esophageal wall thickness to differentiate both the tumor and DES groups from the other two groups was 3.5 mm (sensitivity, 0.64; specificity, 0.62), respectively. Using these parameters, sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis was 0.56 and 0.95 in achalasia, 1.00 and 0.24 in DES, and 1.00 and 0.21 in tumors. Conclusion TUS is a useful, non-invasive diagnostic aid in differentiating patients with primary achalasia from those with other causes of dysphagia.