World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023
Clinical features of acute esophageal mucosal lesions and reflux esophagitis Los Angeles classification grade D: A retrospective study.
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.
Ichita Chikamasa, Sasaki Akiko, Shimizu Sayuri
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acute esophageal mucosal lesions (AEMLs) are an underrecognized and largely unexplored disease. Endoscopic findings are similar, and a higher percentage of AEML could be misdiagnosed as reflux esophagitis Los Angeles classification grade D (RE-D). These diseases could have different pathologies and require different treatments.
AIM: To compare AEML and RE-D to confirm that the two diseases are different from each other and to clarify the clinical features of AEML.
METHODS: We selected emergency endoscopic cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with circumferential esophageal mucosal injury and classified them into AEML and RE-D groups according to the mucosal injury's shape on the oral side. We examined patient background, blood sampling data, comorbidities at onset, endoscopic characteristics, and outcomes in each group.
RESULTS: Among the emergency cases, the AEML and RE-D groups had 105 (3.1%) and 48 (1.4%) cases, respectively. Multiple variables exhibited significantly different results, indicating that these two diseases are distinct. The clinical features of AEML consisted of more comorbidities [risk ratio (RR): 3.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.68-5.71; P < 0.001] and less endoscopic hemostasis compared with RE-D (RR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.10-0.63; P < 0.001). Mortality during hospitalization was higher in the AEML group (RR: 3.43; 95%CI: 0.82-14.40; P = 0.094), and stenosis developed only in the AEML group.
CONCLUSION: AEML and RE-D were clearly distinct diseases with different clinical features. AEML may be more common than assumed, and the potential for its presence should be taken into account in cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with comorbidities.
AIM: To compare AEML and RE-D to confirm that the two diseases are different from each other and to clarify the clinical features of AEML.
METHODS: We selected emergency endoscopic cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with circumferential esophageal mucosal injury and classified them into AEML and RE-D groups according to the mucosal injury's shape on the oral side. We examined patient background, blood sampling data, comorbidities at onset, endoscopic characteristics, and outcomes in each group.
RESULTS: Among the emergency cases, the AEML and RE-D groups had 105 (3.1%) and 48 (1.4%) cases, respectively. Multiple variables exhibited significantly different results, indicating that these two diseases are distinct. The clinical features of AEML consisted of more comorbidities [risk ratio (RR): 3.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.68-5.71; P < 0.001] and less endoscopic hemostasis compared with RE-D (RR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.10-0.63; P < 0.001). Mortality during hospitalization was higher in the AEML group (RR: 3.43; 95%CI: 0.82-14.40; P = 0.094), and stenosis developed only in the AEML group.
CONCLUSION: AEML and RE-D were clearly distinct diseases with different clinical features. AEML may be more common than assumed, and the potential for its presence should be taken into account in cases of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with comorbidities.