» Articles » PMID: 17932762

Empiric Dilation in Non-obstructive Dysphagia

Overview
Journal Dig Dis Sci
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2007 Oct 13
PMID 17932762
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: To study practice patterns in the management of non-obstructive dysphagia among U.S. gastroenterologists.

Data Source: Endoscopic data repository from 100 U.S. gastroenterology practices during 1998-2003 (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI).

Methods: All initial esophago-gastro-duodenoscopies (EGDs) performed in adult patients between 1998 and 2003 (n = 181,261) were evaluated for demographic data, endoscopic findings, and the occurrence of esophageal dilation. A case population of 7,256 patients receiving empiric dilation for dysphagia for non-obstructive dysphagia was compared to a control population of 5764 patients with dilation for peptic strictures.

Results: The group of patients with empiric dilation was younger than the group of patients with peptic strictures and contained more women. Reflux symptoms and erosive esophagitis were less frequent in the empiric dilation group than in the strictures group. Empiric dilations were mostly performed using rubber bougies, whereas strictures were most frequently dilated over a guidewire. For all types of dilators, the diameters were significantly larger in empiric than stricture dilation. Repeat dilations within 1 year after the initial procedure occurred in 4% of the empiric and 13% of the stricture dilations.

Conclusions: Compared with the dilation of peptic strictures, empiric dilation of non-obstructive dysphagia is a more common clinical practice that is performed in a different patient population and utilizes different techniques.

Citing Articles

Impact of CYP2C19 metabolizer status on esophageal mucosal inflammation, acid exposure, and motility among patients on chronic proton-pump inhibitor therapy with refractory symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Tai C, Medwid S, Mclntosh K, Chande N, Kim R, Gregor J J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2024; 7(3):238-245.

PMID: 38841142 PMC: 11149656. DOI: 10.1093/jcag/gwae005.


Empirical Dilation of Non-obstructive Dysphagia: Current Understanding and Future Directions.

Al Saleh H, Malikowski T, Patel D, Ali I, Mahmood S Dig Dis Sci. 2022; 67(12):5416-5424.

PMID: 35397698 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-022-07451-6.


Esophageal stenosis in head and neck cancer patients: Imaging's accuracy to predict dilation response.

Krishna P, Bomze L, Watson W, Yang S, Crawley B, Inman J Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2021; 6(4):677-682.

PMID: 34401491 PMC: 8358992. DOI: 10.1002/lio2.493.


UK guidelines on oesophageal dilatation in clinical practice.

Sami S, Haboubi H, Ang Y, Boger P, Bhandari P, De Caestecker J Gut. 2018; 67(6):1000-1023.

PMID: 29478034 PMC: 5969363. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315414.


Epidemiology and practice patterns of achalasia in a large multi-centre database.

Enestvedt B, Williams J, Sonnenberg A Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 33(11):1209-14.

PMID: 21480936 PMC: 3857989. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04655.x.

References
1.
Egan J, Baron T, Adler D, Davila R, Faigel D, Gan S . Esophageal dilation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63(6):755-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.02.031. View

2.
Colon V, Young M, Ramirez F . The short- and long-term efficacy of empirical esophageal dilation in patients with nonobstructive dysphagia: a prospective, randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95(4):910-3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01928.x. View

3.
Silvis S, Nebel O, Rogers G, Sugawa C, MANDELSTAM P . Endoscopic complications. Results of the 1974 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey. JAMA. 1976; 235(9):928-30. DOI: 10.1001/jama.235.9.928. View

4.
DeMeester T, Wang C, Wernly J, Pellegrini C, Little A, Klementschitsch P . Technique, indications, and clinical use of 24 hour esophageal pH monitoring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1980; 79(5):656-70. View

5.
Arora A . Management strategies for dysphagia with a normal-appearing esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005; 3(3):299-302. DOI: 10.1016/s1542-3565(04)00716-5. View