Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024
Performing Esophageal Biopsies Is Safe During Upper Endoscopy for Food Impaction but Are Underperformed in Certain Populations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barlowe Trevor S, Redd Walker D, Xue Angela Z, Kiran Akshatha, McCallen Justin D, Eluri Swathi, Reed Craig C, Dellon Evan S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations to perform esophageal biopsies during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for esophageal food impaction to evaluate for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), endoscopists often forgo biopsies. There are minimal data on the risks of biopsies in this setting.
AIMS: To determine the safety of performing biopsies during EGD for food impaction.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who presented to University of North Carolina Hospitals from 2014 to 2021 with endoscopically confirmed food impaction. Data were abstracted from the medical records. Baseline clinical characteristics, procedural details, and adverse events were compared between patients who did and did not undergo biopsy. Adverse events were classified as esophageal (mucosal tear, bleeding, perforation) or extra-esophageal (aspiration, respiratory compromise, hypotension, arrhythmia).
RESULTS: Of 188 patients who underwent EGD for food impaction, 73 (39%) had biopsies taken. Older and non-White patients were less likely to be biopsied. None of the Black patients had biopsies taken. Only 2 (2.7%) of the 73 biopsied patients had an adverse event, and neither was related to the biopsies. Patients who were biopsied were less likely to experience adverse events. There were no differences in re-admission, ICU admission, or 30-day mortality between patients who were and were not biopsied.
CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal biopsies remain underperformed during EGD for food impaction, especially in certain patient populations. Esophageal biopsies at the time of food impaction are unlikely to cause adverse events. Safety concerns should not preclude biopsies, and biopsies should be performed in the absence of extenuating circumstances.
AIMS: To determine the safety of performing biopsies during EGD for food impaction.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who presented to University of North Carolina Hospitals from 2014 to 2021 with endoscopically confirmed food impaction. Data were abstracted from the medical records. Baseline clinical characteristics, procedural details, and adverse events were compared between patients who did and did not undergo biopsy. Adverse events were classified as esophageal (mucosal tear, bleeding, perforation) or extra-esophageal (aspiration, respiratory compromise, hypotension, arrhythmia).
RESULTS: Of 188 patients who underwent EGD for food impaction, 73 (39%) had biopsies taken. Older and non-White patients were less likely to be biopsied. None of the Black patients had biopsies taken. Only 2 (2.7%) of the 73 biopsied patients had an adverse event, and neither was related to the biopsies. Patients who were biopsied were less likely to experience adverse events. There were no differences in re-admission, ICU admission, or 30-day mortality between patients who were and were not biopsied.
CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal biopsies remain underperformed during EGD for food impaction, especially in certain patient populations. Esophageal biopsies at the time of food impaction are unlikely to cause adverse events. Safety concerns should not preclude biopsies, and biopsies should be performed in the absence of extenuating circumstances.