Loading…

Comparison of endoscopy and radiographic imaging for detection of esophageal inflammation and remodeling in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophil predominant mucosal inflammation is central to the diagnosis and activity assessment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Esophageal mural remodeling is an important consequence of EoE that is responsible for adverse events of dysphagia, food impaction, and esophageal stenosis. The aim of t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2018-04, Vol.87 (4), p.962-968
Main Authors: Nelson, Matthew J., Miller, Frank H., Moy, Nelson, Zalewski, Angelika, Gonsalves, Nirmala, Gregory, Dyanna L., Hirano, Ikuo
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Eosinophil predominant mucosal inflammation is central to the diagnosis and activity assessment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Esophageal mural remodeling is an important consequence of EoE that is responsible for adverse events of dysphagia, food impaction, and esophageal stenosis. The aim of this study was to compare upper endoscopy (EGD) with barium upper GI study (UGI) for the detection of esophageal inflammation and remodeling in adults with EoE. A retrospective review on a single-center database of adults with confirmed EoE identified those with EGD and UGI performed within 6 months of each another. Studies were reviewed for mucosal inflammatory and remodeling abnormalities. Seventy patients were included. Initial UGI results were consistent with EoE in 10% and suggestive of EoE in 39%. Review of UGI by a senior GI radiologist increased detection of changes consistent with EoE (34%). EGD identified characteristic abnormalities in 93%, which was significantly greater than UGI (67%). Inflammatory features were more frequently appreciated on EGD (74%) compared with UGI (21%). There was no significant difference in fibrostenotic changes observed on EGD (84%) versus UGI (73%). EGD and UGI have similar sensitivity for identifying the remodeling consequences of EoE; however, inflammatory features are better assessed on EGD. Inadequate sensitivity of UGI for composite features of EoE limits its capabilities as a diagnostic test, although radiologists’ awareness significantly increases the diagnostic yield of UGI. UGI and EGD may identify fibrostenotic changes unappreciated by its counterpart and thus provide complementary information in select patients.
ISSN:0016-5107
1097-6779
DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2017.09.037