Endoscopic findings in patients with persistent dyspepsia in a tertiary care hospital of South Punjab

Background: One of the most common clinical problem encountered by physicians in clinical practice is dyspepsia. This symptom has great impact on quality of life of patients. There are numerous causes of dyspepsia, organic as well as functional. Endoscopy is the diagnostic test of choice in these patients. Aim: The aim of our study was to see the endoscopic findings in patients with persistent dyspepsia. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data of patients who underwent Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for persistent dyspepsia was collected and evaluated. Results: There were 495 patients in our study, 244 females and 251 males, with a mean age of 41 years. Almost half of the patients belonged to 21-40 years age group. The most common endoscopic finding in patients with persistent dyspepsia was gastritis (n=219, 44.2%), followed by normal endoscopy (n= 94, 19%), incompetent lower esophageal sphincter (n=67, 13.5%), gastric malignancy (n=48, 9.7%). Ulcer disease was found in just 15 patients (3%). Conclusion: Most common endoscopic finding in patients with persistent dyspepsia was gastritis followed by normal endoscopy. Key Words: dyspepsia, endoscopy

Endoscopic Evaluation of Dyspeptic Patient in Tertiary Care Hospital

Objectives: To observe the organic change occurs in dyspeptic patient by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: The present prospective, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted at Medicine and Gastroenterology department of Sir Salimullah Medical College & Mitford Hospital, over a period of 6 month from 2019 to 2020.The study population was 200with aged18 years and above, irrespective of sex and who were suffering from dyspeptic symptoms for at least 6 months duration. Data regarding the demographic profile of study population nand endoscopic findings were processed and analyzed using software SPSS (Statistical Package for social science) version 26. Results: It was observed that most of the dyspeptic patients 71%were showing normal endoscopic findings and 29% have abnormal endoscopy findingwhere majority of the patient were 51 – 70 years of age.Out of them 41% of male and 26% of female had organic changes. It was also found that 46% of the patients were smoker and among them 34(37%) had abnormal endoscopic finding where 24(22%) non-smokerpatient had abnormal finding, which were statistically significant (p,0.05) between two group. Among abnormal endoscopic finding, 11% gastric erosions, 08% gastric ulcer, 04% duodenal erosions, 03% duodenal ulcer, 02% reflux oesophagitis, and carcinoma stomach rare 01%. Conclusion: The study concludes that majority of patients with complaints of dyspepsia have no organic lesion and can be considered non ulcer dyspepsia. The common abnormal endoscopic findings included gastric erosion and gastric ulcers relating to dyspepsia. The study findings also suggest that smoking is a risk factor for developing organic changes in dyspeptic patients specially in middle age group. Bangladesh J Medicine July 2022; 33(1) : 3-7

173 CATERPILLAR SIGN: NOVEL ENDOSCOPIC FINDING IN PATIENTS WITH EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS

Pathological identification of esophageal eosinophilia (EE) is considered to be most important and critical step for diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Although several endoscopic findings related with EoE have been reported, it is still difficult to exclude other causes of EE, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease. Here, we noted a novel endoscopic finding related with EoE termed ‘Caterpillar sign’. The aim of this study was to evaluate its clinical significance for the diagnosis of EoE. Methods One hundred and seventy-four patients who were endoscopically suspected with EoE at our hospital and affiliated institutions were enrolled. EoE was defined clinically by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologically by the presence of EE [≧15 eosinophils/high power field (HPF)]. Endoscopic findings at baseline were retrospectively reviewed. ‘Caterpillar sign’ was defined as a stair-like, fragile, slight mucosal protruded lesion sandwiched between longitudinal furrows, such as the Caterpillar traces remaining on the ground (Figure). Furthermore, the clinicopathological features of patients having ‘Caterpillar sign’ were evaluated. Results One hundred and seventy-four patients (92 males, 82 females with mean age of 49.7) suspected with EoE were evaluated, of whom 60 (34.5%) was finally diagnosed as EoE. ‘Caterpillar sign’ was found in 48 patients (80.0%). Sensitivity and Specificity of ‘Caterpillar sign’ for the diagnosis of EoE was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–0.85) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90–0.97), respectively. Furthermore, the presence of ‘Caterpillar sign’ was associated with degree of eosinophil infiltration (Caterpillar sign positive: 42.9 ± 49.3/HPF vs. Caterpillar sign negative: 6.7 ± 24.4/HPF, p < 0.0001). Conclusion This novel finding termed ‘Caterpillar sign’ was clinically useful for the definitive diagnosis of EoE and associated with degree of eosinophil infiltration.

Adecuación de la indicación de la colonoscopia según criterios de EPAGE II en un hospital universitario de Uruguay

Background: Prioritization of criteria have been developed to reduce the increased demand. The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy developed an online program (EPAGE II). The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of the colonoscopy indication according to the EPAGE II criteria and correlate it with the endoscopic findings. Materials and Methods: Retrospective and analytical study that included all colonoscopies performed in the period March 2018 - March 2019. Colonoscopies with insufficient preparation and missing data, were excluded. They were categorized into having appropriate, inappropriate and uncertain indication, according to EPAGE II criteria. Sociodemographic data, indication, degree of preparation, and the presence of relevant findings were recorded. Results: 648 studies were included, 64.7% were women, and 51.8% were ordered by gastroenterologists. In 62% the preparation was adequate. In 171 (26.4%) the indication was CCR screening. In 525 (81%) the indication was appropriate, in 79 (12,2%) was not appropriate and in 44 (6,8%) was uncertain. An appropriate indication was significantly associated with age older than 50 years (p≤0.001). An endoscopic relevant diagnosis was observed in 55.2%. There was a significant association between appropriate indication and a relevant endoscopic diagnosis (p <0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of EPAGE II for an appropriate indication in relation to a relevant endoscopic finding were 84.92 %, 24.14%, 69.72% and 43.75% respectively. Conclusions: In this group of patients the EPAGE II showed high sensitivity and low specificity for the appropriateness of the indication in relation to the findings.