Management of Esophageal Food Impaction Varies Among Gastroenterologists and Affects Identification of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Identification of gaps in the delivery of high-quality care of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis

Quality indicators (QIs) are standardized metrics that can be used to quantify health care delivery and identify important areas for practice improvement. Nine QIs pertaining to the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were recently established. We therefore aimed to identify existing gaps in care using these QIs. This is a retrospective, multicenter study utilizing recently established EoE QIs to evaluate practice patterns among adult gastroenterologists in the diagnosis and management of EoE. Three patient cohorts of 30 patients each presenting with dysphagia, food impaction, and new diagnosis of EoE, respectively, were obtained, yielding 120 patients per site to assess for every QI. Summary statistics were reported across two main themes: diagnosis and management. Subsequent analysis of gaps in care was then performed. The domain of diagnosis of EoE (QI 1 and 2) had the most notable gap in care with only 55% of the presenting patients undergoing appropriate evaluation for EoE. The domain of management of EoE had overall higher QI fulfillment-however it also contained significant intra-category variation in care. Notably, while 79% of patients had clinical follow-up within 1 year from remission, only 54% underwent surveillance endoscopy within 2 years of remission. In contrast, 100% of patients with symptomatic strictures independent of histologic response underwent endoscopic dilation (QI 4). Management approaches for EoE are evolving and variation in care delivery exists. We identified significant gaps in both diagnosis of EoE especially amongst patients presenting with index food impaction and long term management of EoE, when retrospectively evaluating care patterns using newly established QIs. This is the first study of its kind to utilize these previously established QIs to objectively identify care gaps that exist in EoE amongst several institutions. These findings also highlight the importance of QIs and standardization of management of complex chronic diseases like EoE to help bridge these gaps and provide a framework to measure adherence to these best practices.

Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders

Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis: a common cause of food bolus obstruction

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EOE) is a known cause of food bolus obstruction (FBO) with rising incidence and prevalence.

AIMS

To assess the rates of EOE in adult cases presenting with an FBO via prospective biopsy collection during index endoscopy.

METHODS

Oesophageal FBO cases requiring gastroscopy between February 2014 and January 2021 at a single institution with a unified policy to perform biopsies on FBO cases were analysed using medical records, endoscopy and histology. Statistical analysis was undertaken to compare those with and without EOE as their final diagnosis, including the timing of oesophageal biopsy and the season that cases presented.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety FBO presentations were analysed, 15 patients presented twice and one patient presented four times within the 7-year study period. Men represented 72% of cases. A total of 78% of cases had biopsies collected at an index or scheduled follow-up endoscopy. EOE was the cause of the FBO in 28% (53/190) of presentations. FBO secondary to EOE was more likely to occur in the spring and summer months (Australian September to March), with 39% (19 of 49) of cases presenting in spring attributable to EOE.

CONCLUSION

EOE affects a significant proportion of patients presenting with FBO (28%); a high biopsy rate of 78% in FBO cases provides an opportunity for prompt diagnosis and treatment.

Association between time from esophageal food impaction to endoscopy and adverse events

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend emergent or urgent EGD for esophageal food impaction (EFI), but data on how time to EGD impacts the risk of adverse events remain limited. We determined whether EFI-to-EGD time was associated with adverse events.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of patients with endoscopically confirmed EFI, adverse events were classified as esophageal (mucosal tear, bleeding, perforation) or extraesophageal (aspiration, respiratory compromise, hypotension, arrhythmia). Esophageal perforation and extraesophageal adverse events requiring intensive care unit admission were classified as serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics, event details, and procedural details were compared between patients with and without adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess for an association between EFI-to-EGD time and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 188 patients with EFI, 22 (12%) had any adverse event and 2 (1%) had a serious adverse event. Patients with adverse events were older and more likely to have an esophageal motility disorder, to tolerate secretions at presentation, and to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score. EFI-to-EGD time was similar in those with and without adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EFI-to-EGD time was not associated with adverse events (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, .97-1.04] for 1-hour increments; odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval, .86-1.24] for 6-hour increments). Results were similar after stratifying by eosinophilic esophagitis status and after adjusting for possible confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Because the time from EFI to EGD is not associated with adverse events, emergent EGD for EFI may be unnecessary, and other considerations may determine EGD timing.

Postendoscopy Care for Patients Presenting With Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction: A Population-Based Multicenter Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal food bolus impactions (FBI) are a common gastrointestinal emergency. Appropriate management includes not only index endoscopy for disimpaction but also medical follow-up and treatment for the underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the appropriateness of postendoscopy care for patients with FBI and assessed patient-related, physician-related, and system-related factors that may contribute to loss to follow-up.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based, multicenter cohort study of all adult patients undergoing endoscopy for FBI in the Calgary Health Zone, Canada, from 2016 to 2018. Appropriate postendoscopy care was defined by a composite of a clinical or endoscopic follow-up visit, appropriate investigations (e.g., manometry), or therapy (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors or endoscopic dilation). Predictors of inappropriate care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 519 patients underwent endoscopy for FBI: 25.2% (131/519) did not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. Half of the patients (55.3%, 287/519) underwent follow-up endoscopy or attended clinic, and among this group, 22.3% (64/287) had a change in their initial diagnosis after follow-up, including 3 new cases of esophageal cancer. Patients in whom a suspected underlying esophageal pathology was not identified at the index endoscopy were 7-fold (adjusted odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 4.49-11.78, P < 0.001) more likely to receive inappropriate postendoscopy follow-up and treatment, even after adjusting for age, sex, rural residence, timing of endoscopy, weekend presentation, and endoscopic interventions.

DISCUSSION

One-quarter of patients presenting with an FBI do not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. This is strongly associated with failure to identify a potential underlying pathology at index presentation.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Despite best practice recommendations for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), variation in care exists.

METHODS

We used established methodology for quality indicator development to identify metrics to define quality for the treatment of EoE.

RESULTS

Among 29 proposed quality indicator statements, 9 (31%) were adopted as highly valid across all categories. Two (22%) of these statements were identified as having existing or suspected quality gaps.

DISCUSSION

We identified highly valid EoE quality indicators for adult gastroenterologists, which can be used for quality improvement with resulting benefits for patient outcomes.

Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis at the Time of Esophageal Food Impaction

BACKGROUND

Esophageal food impactions (EFI) often precede a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EOE). Current guidelines suggest obtaining esophageal biopsies upon suspicion of EOE, treating with proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and repeating esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). This study was conducted to determine provider practice patterns with these mentioned recommendations at the time of EFI.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, key outcomes were the proportion of patients who had EOE mucosal biopsies, EOE diagnosis, PPI initiation, and recommendations and completions of repeat EGD. Differences in outcomes among age, sex, race, off-hours time of procedure, and trainee involvement were examined. EOE diagnosis predictors were explored with logistic regression.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine percent of the patients had esophageal biopsies taken at the time of index EGD (iEGD). Sixteen patients were diagnosed with EOE at the time of index EFI, while fourteen patients were diagnosed on subsequent EGDs. Among those diagnosed with EOE at iEGD, 94% were placed on PPI. Of patients with confirmed EOE on index biopsy, 63% of patients were recommended repeat EGD, of which 50% completed it within 90 days. Older age was protective of EOE diagnosis while no GERD history and endoscopist suspicion of EOE predicted diagnosis of EOE.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists uncommonly take biopsies at the time of EFI, which may delay diagnosis and treatment of EOE.

Esophageal disease and loss to follow-up are common among patients who experience non-endoscopic resolution of food impaction

Many patients who experience esophageal food impaction (EFI) will have non-endoscopic resolution (NER) of their EFI, but this population is poorly defined. The purpose of this study is to describe the outcomes of patients with NER of EFI. A retrospective chart review from 2007 to 2017 was performed at a single tertiary care center. There were 593 patients who presented to the emergency department with EFI, defined as recent soft food ingestion and inability to tolerate oral secretions. Adequate follow-up was defined as a gastroenterology clinic visit or EGD within 6 months of EFI. Out of these, 149 patients (25.1%) had NER of their EFI. Patients with NER were less likely to have adequate follow-up than those with ER (45.0% vs. 59.5%, P = 0.003). Of those without established esophageal disease and NER, 92.5% had significant esophageal pathology on endoscopy, including stricture (34.0%), features of eosinophilic esophagitis (30.2%), and esophagitis (22.6%). Recurrent EFI occurred at a similar rate between patients with NER and ER (9.4% vs. 14.6%, P = 0.14). Patients with established esophageal disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51, P = 0.04) and recommendation to follow-up at time of EFI (OR: 6.06, P < 0.001) were most likely to follow up after EFI. Approximately, a quarter of patients with EFI will experience NER of their EFI. Virtually, all patients (92.5%) were found to have esophageal disease warranting longitudinal care. Importantly, follow-up rates are significantly lower in those with NER than their counterparts requiring EGD. Our study highlights the need to develop standardized protocols that improve follow-up for patients after NER of EFI.

Accurate and timely diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis improves over time in Europe. An analysis of the EoE CONNECT Registry

Background

Poor adherence to clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been described and the diagnostic delay of the disease continues to be unacceptable in many settings.

Objective

To analyze the impact of improved knowledge provided by the successive international clinical practice guidelines on reducing diagnostic delay and improving the diagnostic process for European patients with EoE.

Methods

Cross‐sectional analysis of the EoE CONNECT registry based on clinical practice. Time periods defined by the publication dates of four major sets of guidelines over 10 years were considered. Patients were grouped per time period according to date of symptom onset.

Results

Data from 1,132 patients was analyzed and median (IQR) diagnostic delay in the whole series was 2.1 (0.7‐6.2) years. This gradually decreased over time with subsequent release of new guidelines (p < 0.001), from 12.7 years up to 2007 to 0.7 years after 2017. The proportion of patients with stricturing of mixed phenotypes at the point of EoE diagnosis also decreased over time (41.3% vs. 16%; p < 0.001), as did EREFS scores. The fibrotic sub‐score decreased from a median (IQR) of 2 (1‐2) to 0 (0‐1) when patients whose symptoms started up to 2007 and after 2017 were compared (p < 0.001). In parallel, symptoms measured with the Dysphagia Symptoms Score reduced significantly when patients with symptoms starting before 2007 and after 2012 were compared. A reduction in the number of endoscopies patients underwent before the one that achieved an EoE diagnosis, and the use of allergy testing as part of the diagnostic workout of EoE, also reduced significantly over time (p = 0.010 and p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

The diagnostic work‐up of EoE patients improved substantially over time at the European sites contributing to EoE CONNECT, with a dramatic reduction in diagnostic delay.

Deep learning-based detection of eosinophilic esophagitis

BACKGROUND

For eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a substantial diagnostic delay is still a clinically relevant phenomenon. Deep learning-based algorithms have demonstrated potential in medical image analysis. Here we establish a convolutional neuronal network (CNN)-based approach that can distinguish the appearance of EoE from normal findings and candida esophagitis.

METHODS

We trained and tested a CNN using 484 real-world endoscopic images from 134 subjects consisting of three classes (normal, EoE, and candidiasis). Images were split into two completely independent datasets. The proposed approach was evaluated against three trainee endoscopists using the test set. Model-explainability was enhanced by deep Taylor decomposition.

RESULTS

Global accuracy (0.915 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.880-0.940]), sensitivity (0.871 [95 %CI 0.819-0.910]), and specificity (0.936 [95 %CI 0.910-0.955]) were significantly higher than for the endoscopists on the test set. Global area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.966 [95 %CI 0.954-0.975]. Results were highly reproducible. Explainability analysis found that the algorithm identified the characteristic signs also used by endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Complex endoscopic classification tasks including more than two classes can be solved by CNN-based algorithms. Therefore, our algorithm may assist clinicians in making the diagnosis of EoE.

Empiric proton pump inhibitor therapy after esophageal food impaction may mask eosinophilic esophagitis diagnosis at follow-up

Esophageal food impaction (EFI) is often the first presentation for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE); however, there is significant heterogeneity in the management of EFI. We aimed to study the impact of EFI management, particularly post-EFI medication prescriptions on EoE diagnosis, follow-up, and recurrence in patients with endoscopic features of EoE. In our retrospective study, adults presenting between 2007 and 2017 with EFI requiring endoscopic dis-impaction with endoscopic features of EoE (furrows, rings, and/or exudates) were included. We examined the impact of demographics and EFI management on EoE diagnosis, follow-up (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD] or clinic visit within 6 months), and recurrence. We identified 164 cases of EFI due to suspected EoE. Biopsy was performed in 68 patients (41.5%), and 144 patients (87.8%) were placed on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and/or swallow corticosteroids after EFI, including 88.5% of those not biopsied. PPI use at time of biopsy was negatively associated with EoE diagnosis (odds ratio: 0.39, confidence interval: 0.17-0.85). Sixty-one (37.4%) patients were lost to follow-up at 6 months. Recurrent EFI at 1 year occurred in 3.7% of patients. Medications, most commonly PPI, are frequently prescribed after EFI when the endoscopic features of EoE are present, which may mask the diagnosis of EoE on follow-up EGD. We estimated that for every five patients biopsied on PPI, one case of EoE is masked. As recurrent EFI within 1 year is uncommon, empiric therapy should be avoided until diagnostic biopsies are obtained. Further efforts to reduce loss to follow-up after EFI are also needed.

Follow-up and symptom persistence after esophageal food impaction

Esophageal food impactions (EFI) are associated with esophageal pathology, most commonly eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Obtaining biopsies provides opportunity for diagnosis, which is important since treatment of EoE decreases the risk for future EFI. Outpatient follow-up rates remain suboptimal and outcomes of patients without timely follow-up are unknown. We aimed to identify the factors associated with pediatric subspecialty follow-up post-EFI and to determine the symptom burden in patients without follow-up. We performed a retrospective review of patients presenting with EFI at a tertiary children's hospital between 2010 and 2018. Patients without subspecialty follow-up within 1 year of EFI were included in a prospective telephone survey investigating the barriers to care, outcomes, and symptoms. Clinical characteristics were compared between groups. Multivariate analysis was used to control for multiple variables. There were 127 EFI identified in 123 individuals (73% male, mean age: 12.2 years). Esophageal biopsies were collected in 76% of cases, and 49% of patients had follow-up. Individuals with follow-up were more likely (P ≤ 0.05) to have had biopsies. In a multivariate analysis, written recommendation for follow-up (Odds Ratio: 6.9 [2.4-19.5], P = 0.001) as well as atopic history and identified stricture were associated with a higher likelihood of follow-up. Those without follow-up had subsequent stricture (35%), dilation (44%), or EFI (39%), and 55% (12/22) described ongoing esophageal symptoms. Identification of treatable findings at time of EFI and ongoing symptom burden after EFI support an imperative for follow-up after EFI. Clear recommendations are a modifiable factor that may improve follow-up in this population.

EoE Down Under Is Still EoE: Variability in Provider Practice Patterns in Australia and New Zealand Among Pediatric Gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

There is likely variation in approach and management of patient with EoE due to lack of standardized care and variation in guidelines. We aimed to identify current practices regarding diagnosis and treatment in children with eosinophillic esophagitis (EoE) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).

METHODS

Information on current diagnostic and management approaches for pediatric EoE was collected via an online survey sent to pediatric gastroenterologists (pGE) in ANZ. We performed a cross-sectional study of pGE using a 49-question instrument regarding evaluation, diagnostic, and therapeutic aspects of EoE between October 2019 and December 2019.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of the survey responders were from Australia, and 66% were academic. 30% pGE perform > 3 esophageal biopsies for diagnosis of EoE, 40% involve an allergist, 30% use a twice daily PPI trial, and 70% do not exclude other cause of esophageal eosinophilia. For management, only 3% use dietary elimination as an initial therapy, and 24% use less than the recommended doses of swallowed fluticasone. Forty-nine percent were likely to stop treatment in after remission is achieved for 12 months. The EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) was not routinely used (49%). Two-thirds of pGE are concerned about long-term effects of recurrent need of general anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic and management strategies for EoE differed widely among pGE in ANZ, including in diagnostic biopsies, assessing competing causes of esophageal eosinophilia, initials selection of treatments, and maintenance strategies. This variability likely reflects continued uncertainty regarding optimal management strategies and stresses the need for pediatric-specific ANZ guidelines to standardize EoE care.

Efficacy of Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Real-World Practice

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Topical steroids, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and dietary interventions are recommended first- and second-line therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We investigated differences in their effectiveness in a real-world, clinical practice cohort of patients with EoE.

METHODS

We collected data on the efficacy of different therapies for EoE (ability to induce clinical and histologic remission) from the multicenter EoE CONNECT database-a database of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of EoE in Europe that began in 2016. We obtained data from 589 patients, treated at 11 centers, on sex, age, time of diagnosis, starting date of any therapy, response to therapy, treatment end dates, alternative treatments, and findings from endoscopy. The baseline endoscopy was used for diagnosis of EoE; second endoscopy was performed to evaluate response to first-line therapies. After changes in treatment, generally because lack of efficacy, a last endoscopy was performed. The time elapsed between endoscopies depended on the criteria of attending physicians. Clinical remission was defined by a decrease of more than 50% in Dysphagia Symptom Score; improvement in symptoms by less than 50% from baseline was considered as clinical response. Histologic remission was defined as a peak eosinophil count below 5 eosinophils/hpf. A peak eosinophil count between 5 and 14 eosinophils/hpf was considered histologic response. We identified factors associated with therapy selection and effectiveness using χ2 and multinomial logistic regression analyses RESULTS: PPIs were the first-line treatment for 76.4% of patients, followed by topical steroids (for 10.5%) and elimination diets (for 7.8%). Topical steroids were most effective in inducing clinical and histologic remission or response (in 67.7% of patients), followed by empiric elimination diets (in 52.0%), and PPIs (in 50.2%). Among the 344 patients who switched to a second-line therapy, dietary interventions were selected for 47.1% of patients, followed by PPIs (for 29.1%) and topical steroids (for 18.6%). Clinical and histologic remission or response was achieved by 80.7% of patients treated with topical steroids, 69.2% of patients given PPIs, and 41.7% of patients on empiric elimination diets. Multivariate analyses found the stricturing phenotype of EoE to be associated with selection of topical steroids over PPIs as the first-line therapy; lack of fibrotic features at initial endoscopy was associated with selection of elimination diets over topical steroids as a second-line therapy. The recruiting center was significantly associated with therapy choice; second-line treatment with topical steroids or PPIs were the only variables associated with clinical and histologic remission.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from a large cohort of patients with EoE in Europe, we found topical steroids to be the most effective at inducing clinical and histologic remission, but PPIs to be the most frequently prescribed. Treatment approaches vary with institution and presence of fibrosis or strictures.

Red Between the Lines: Evolution of Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Distinct Clinicopathologic Syndrome

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, including dysphagia. While EoE is still considered a rare disease, in practice it seems that more and more cases are diagnosed every week, research in the field is exploding, and the pipeline for treatments contains multiple agents, some of which are quite far along the development pathway. After only scattered cases and small series were published in the late 1970s and 1980, Stephen Attwood, Thomas Smyrk, Tom DeMeester, and James Jones, published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences in 1993 a seminal report that described a clinicopathologic syndrome of esophageal eosinophilia with dysphagia. This review details the origins of this paper and compares and contrast what was observed then and what is known now about multiple aspects of EoE, including the clinical presentation, diagnosis, epidemiology, natural history, and treatments and outcomes. Moreover, it will highlight how the paper presaged a number of controversies in the field that have yet to be resolved, as well as foreshadowed the collaborative, multidisciplinary approach that has led to rapid advances.

Esophageal perforation in eosinophilic esophagitis: A systematic review on clinical presentation, management and outcomes

There is evidence of an increased fragility in the inflamed esophagus of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We performed a systematic review on presentation, management and outcomes of and surgical interventions for esophageal perforation in these patients, by searching in the MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases. Of the 599 references identified, 41 full-papers and 9 abstract met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 76 esophageal perforation episodes in 70 individual patients aged between 9 and 65 years were reported. 51 patients had not been diagnosed with EoE at the time of perforation; 14 patients had an untreated disease and the remaining were non responsive to therapy. Acute or progressive pain after long-lasting dysphagia and food impaction was the most common symptom leading to diagnosis in 42 patients who presented with Boerhaave syndrome. Pushing impacted food into the stomach led to perforation in 5 cases. Eight episodes appeared after dilation. CT scans demonstrated perforation in 82.4% of patients. Conservative management (including esophageal stenting) was used in 67.1% patients. The 25 remaining patients underwent surgery. Recovery was uneventful in the vast majority of patients. No death was reported. Active inflammation due to undiagnosed or untreated EoE was present in most cases of esophageal perforation. Conservative treatment of perforation should always be considered in EoE.

A Conceptual Approach to Understanding Treatment Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

While the diagnosis and initial treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis are becoming more standardized, there are still major gaps in knowledge related to measuring treatment response. One such question centers on how to measure treatment response and what treatment endpoints should be. This impacts not only patient care and engagement in decision-making, but also the field of drug development. In addition, studies so far have use a myriad of treatment endpoints including over a dozen histologic endpoint criteria. This review will discuss the various stakeholders involved in assessment of treatment endpoints of a complex condition, including patients, practitioners and regulatory agencies, and the care settings in which treatment response is assessed, including routine clinical care, clinical trials, and observational studies. Potential parameters or treatment endpoints such as histology, symptoms, patient-reported outcomes, endoscopy, and biomarkers are discussed along with associated challenges and opportunities. A framework on how to define treatment outcomes is discussed and a conceptual approach treatment response is proposed. This takes into account histology, symptoms, and endoscopic findings and harnesses existing, validated tools. It includes definitions of nonresponse, complete normalization, and a graded response category between these 2 extremes, and also permits flexibility and latitude for modifications as newer knowledge emerges. In addition, ways to position the pediatric population in these endeavors are discussed as are future research directions.

Loss to follow-up after food impaction among patients with and without eosinophilic esophagitis

Symptoms of esophageal dysfunction such as food impaction are consistent with, but not diagnostic for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) without obtaining histology. We conducted a retrospective study to characterize patients with food impaction at a tertiary center. We hypothesized that many patients with food impaction may be lost to follow-up and that many have features suggestive of EoE. Adult patients presenting to the emergency department with esophageal food impaction were identified from an endoscopic database. Electronic medical records were manually abstracted. We examined associations between demographics, comorbid conditions, and follow-up with biopsy findings. Of 220 patients who presented to the emergency department for food impaction, 74.1% were men. Adequate follow-up was not documented in 120 (54.5%). Those lost to follow-up did not differ significantly by gender, age at symptom onset, or distance from hospital compared to those with follow-up. Esophageal biopsies were obtained in 158 (71.8%), and those with ≥15 eos/HPF were more likely to be lost to follow-up than those with <15 eos/HPF (52.8% vs. 34.8%, P < 0.05). Of those never biopsied, 79.0% were lost to follow-up and had intermediate proportions of males, food allergy, and asthma when compared to those with and without eosinophilic inflammation. Patients with food impaction commonly have EoE but are often lost to follow-up. Among those never biopsied, demographic and clinical features suggest that many may have undiagnosed EoE. Strategies for increasing use of biopsies in patients with food impaction and improving follow-up are needed to diagnose and manage EoE.

Recognising eosinophilic oesophagitis as a cause of food bolus obstruction

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, inflammatory condition of the oesophagus, characterised by intermittent dysphagia, food bolus obstruction (FBO) and histologically proven, eosinophil-mediated inflammation. EoE is identified in up to 50% of FBO presentations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the management of patients presenting with FBO to our centre against current clinical guidelines.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of acute FBO was performed between January 2008 and August 2014. Patients were identified using the ICD 10 code T18.1, 'foreign body in oesophagus' in their electronic discharge document. Data were collected on admitting specialty, previous FBO, endoscopy findings, biopsy sites and findings, eosinophil count and diagnosis of EoE.

RESULTS

310 acute episodes of FBO were included in the final study cohort. 202 (65.2%) flexible oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) were performed, with 50 (34.5%) of those occurring in those admitted under ENT (n=145), versus 28 (93.3%) and 124 (91.9%) in general medicine (n=30) and surgery (n=135), respectively. 80 (39.6%) had oesophageal biopsies taken, and 21 novel diagnoses of EoE were made (26.3% biopsy-proven rate). Five (23.8%) of the novel diagnoses had a formal eosinophil count included in the histopathology report, and eight (38.1%) had up to three previous OGDs that had not diagnosed their condition of EoE.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights wide variation in adherence to the guidelines for the management of FBO depending on admitting specialty. We advocate an FBO protocol involving single specialty management, flexible OGD, ≥6 biopsies from the upper and lower oesophagus, and standardisation of oesophageal biopsy reports with a formal eosinophil count.

The evolution of treatment and complications of esophageal food impaction

Background

Esophageal food impaction is relatively common and increasing over time. Treatment ranges from medications to invasive endoscopic therapies. The endoscopic push technique has been advised against in favor of endoscopic retrieval for safety concerns. We sought to assess use patterns and safety of treatments for food impaction in a population-based retrospective review.

Methods

A database of recorded esophageal food impactions in Olmsted County, MN, USA, from 1975-2011 was reviewed for patient demographics, treatment, and complications.

Results

A total of 645 impactions occurred, with increasing incidence over time, peaking at 23.2 per year (2000-2004). Medications (almost exclusively glucagon) were successful in relieving impactions 34.5% of the time when trialed. Urgent endoscopy was common (74.0%), as was the need for endoscopic therapy (67.1%). Endoscopic therapy increased over time, with the endoscopic push technique becoming most common. Esophageal complications (deep mucosal injury or perforation) increased over time but remained rare (peak 11%). There was no difference in complications between push and retrieval techniques.

Conclusions

The endoscopic push technique is safe in comparison to endoscopic retrieval in esophageal food impactions. While complications surrounding impaction have increased, they remain rare. Medication trials are reasonable, as long as they do not delay endoscopy, and may prevent the need for emergent endoscopy in one-third of cases.