Emergency Care of Esophageal Foreign Body Impactions: Timing, Treatment Modalities, and Resource Utilization

Overview

Journal Dis Esophagus

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2012 Mar 31

PMID 22458738

Citations 8

Authors

S D Crockett

S L W Sperry

C Brock Miller

N J Shaheen

E S Dellon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Esophageal foreign body impaction (EFBI) often requires urgent evaluation and treatment, but characteristics of emergency department (ED) care such as timing of presentation and therapeutic procedures and costs of care are unknown. We aimed to study health-care utilization for patients with EFBI presenting to the ED. Cases of EFBI from 2002 to 2009 were identified by querying three different databases from the University of North Carolina Hospitals for all records with ICD-9 CM code 935.1: 'foreign body in the esophagus.' Charts were reviewed to confirm EFBI and extract pertinent data related to the ED visit, including time of presentation, length of ED stay, medications administered, type of procedure performed, characteristics of procedures, and time to therapeutic procedure. Hospital charges for EFBI encounters and consult fees were determined from the Physicians' Fee Reference 2010, and were compiled to estimate costs. Of the 548 cases of EFBI identified, 351 subjects (64%) presented to the ED. A total of 118 (34%) patients received a medication to treat EFBI, which was only effective in 8% of those patients. Two hundred ninety (83%) subjects underwent a procedure including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (n=206) or ear, nose, and throat surgery (ENT)-performed laryngoscopy/esophagoscopy (n=138). Admission to the hospital occurred in 162 (46%) of cases. There was no relationship between ED arrival time and time-to-procedure or total time in ED. There was also no significant relationship between delivery of ED medications and likelihood of undergoing a procedure, or between ED arrival time and delivery of medications. The charges associated with a typical EFBI episode ranged from $2284-$6218. In conclusion, the majority of patients with EFBI at our institution presented to the ED. Medical management was largely ineffective. A therapeutic procedure was required to clear the EFBI in most patients. Time of ED arrival made no difference in time-to-procedure, indicating that gastroenterology and ENT specialists recognize the urgency of treating EFBI regardless of time of day.

Citing Articles

Esophageal Obstruction from Food Bolus Impaction Successfully Managed with the "Upright Posture, Chin Tuck, Double Swallow" Maneuver: A Case Report.

Barden M, Schwartz M Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2024; 8(4):343-345.

PMID: 39704593 PMC: 11661253. DOI: 10.5811/cpcem.19397.

Resource Utilization and Risk Factors for Esophageal Injury in Pediatric Esophageal Foreign Bodies.

Hashimi B, Shaffer A, McCoy J, Chi D, Padia R Laryngoscope. 2024; 134(11):4774-4782.

PMID: 38682805 PMC: 11466698. DOI: 10.1002/lary.31479.

A dental nightmare, resolved: what a radiologist needs to know when consulted about ingestion of dental foreign body material.

Guelfguat M, Dipoce J, Dipoce J BJR Case Rep. 2018; 2(2):20150166.

PMID: 30363664 PMC: 6180876. DOI: 10.1259/bjrcr.20150166.

[Clinical features and prognosis of gastrointestinal injury due to foreign bodies in the upper gastrointestinal tract in children: a retrospective analysis of 217 cases].

Tang L, Zhao H, Lou J, Peng K, Yu J, Luo Y Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2018; 20(7):567-571.

PMID: 30022760 PMC: 7389193.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Gastroenteritis.

Cianferoni A, Spergel J Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015; 15(9):58.

PMID: 26233430 DOI: 10.1007/s11882-015-0558-5.

References

Popel J, El-Hakim H, El-Matary W . Esophageal foreign body extraction in children: flexible versus rigid endoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2010; 25(3):919-22. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1299-0. View

Sung S, Jeon S, Son H, Kim S, Jung M, Cho C . Factors predictive of risk for complications in patients with oesophageal foreign bodies. Dig Liver Dis. 2011; 43(8):632-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.02.018. View

Longstreth G, Longstreth K, Yao J . Esophageal food impaction: epidemiology and therapy. A retrospective, observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 53(2):193-8. DOI: 10.1067/mge.2001.112709. View

Ikenberry S, Jue T, Anderson M, Appalaneni V, Banerjee S, Ben-Menachem T . Management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73(6):1085-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.11.010. View

Shrime M, Johnson P, Stewart M . Cost-effective diagnosis of ingested foreign bodies. Laryngoscope. 2007; 117(5):785-93. DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31803c568f. View

Marom T, Goldfarb A, Russo E, Roth Y . Battery ingestion in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 74(8):849-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.05.019. View

Furuta G, Liacouras C, Collins M, Gupta S, Justinich C, Putnam P . Eosinophilic esophagitis in children and adults: a systematic review and consensus recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Gastroenterology. 2007; 133(4):1342-63. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.08.017. View

Colon V, Grade A, Pulliam G, JOHNSON C, Fass R . Effect of doses of glucagon used to treat food impaction on esophageal motor function of normal subjects. Dysphagia. 1998; 14(1):27-30. DOI: 10.1007/PL00009581. View

Sodeman T, Harewood G, Baron T . Assessment of the predictors of response to glucagon in the setting of acute esophageal food bolus impaction. Dysphagia. 2004; 19(1):18-21. DOI: 10.1007/s00455-003-0019-5. View

10.

Al-Haddad M, Ward E, Scolapio J, Ferguson D, Raimondo M . Glucagon for the relief of esophageal food impaction does it really work?. Dig Dis Sci. 2006; 51(11):1930-3. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-006-9221-2. View

11.

Taylor R . Esophageal foreign bodies. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1987; 5(2):301-11. View

12.

Lai A, Chow T, Lee D, Kwok S . Risk factors predicting the development of complications after foreign body ingestion. Br J Surg. 2003; 90(12):1531-5. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4356. View

13.

Zhang X, Liu J, Li J, Hu J, Yu F, Li S . Diagnosis and treatment of 32 cases with aortoesophageal fistula due to esophageal foreign body. Laryngoscope. 2011; 121(2):267-72. DOI: 10.1002/lary.21366. View

14.

Lam H, Woo J, van Hasselt C . Management of ingested foreign bodies: a retrospective review of 5240 patients. J Laryngol Otol. 2002; 115(12):954-7. DOI: 10.1258/0022215011909756. View

15.

Kirchner G, Zuber-Jerger I, Endlicher E, Gelbmann C, Ott C, Ruemmele P . Causes of bolus impaction in the esophagus. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25(10):3170-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-1681-6. View

16.

Wu W, Chiu C, Kuo C, Lin C, Chu Y, Tsou Y . Endoscopic management of suspected esophageal foreign body in adults. Dis Esophagus. 2010; 24(3):131-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2010.01116.x. View

17.

Mosca S, Manes G, Martino R, Amitrano L, Bottino V, Bove A . Endoscopic management of foreign bodies in the upper gastrointestinal tract: report on a series of 414 adult patients. Endoscopy. 2001; 33(8):692-6. DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-16212. View

18.

Palta R, Sahota A, Bemarki A, Salama P, Simpson N, Laine L . Foreign-body ingestion: characteristics and outcomes in a lower socioeconomic population with predominantly intentional ingestion. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 69(3 Pt 1):426-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.072. View

19.

Sperry S, Crockett S, Miller C, Shaheen N, Dellon E . Esophageal foreign-body impactions: epidemiology, time trends, and the impact of the increasing prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74(5):985-91. PMC: 3951006. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.029. View