Loading…

Oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration in patients with noncardiac chest pain

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 1194–1201 Summary Background  Eosinophilic oesophagitis clinically presents with recurrent episodes of dysphagia and food impaction. Recently, we observed patients with noncardiac chest pain and eosinophilic oesophagitis. Aims  To estimate the prevalence of abnormal...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2011-06, Vol.33 (11), p.1194-1201
Main Authors: Achem, S. R., Almansa, C., Krishna, M., Heckman, M. G., Wolfsen, H. C., Talley, N. J., DeVault, K. R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 1194–1201 Summary Background  Eosinophilic oesophagitis clinically presents with recurrent episodes of dysphagia and food impaction. Recently, we observed patients with noncardiac chest pain and eosinophilic oesophagitis. Aims  To estimate the prevalence of abnormal eosinophilic infiltration in noncardiac chest pain patients and examine diagnostic utility of demographic, clinical and endoscopic variables to predict eosinophilic oesophagitis. Methods  Retrospective study of 171 consecutive patients referred for EGD evaluation of noncardiac chest pain. Endoscopic signs consistent with eosinophilic oesophagitis were recorded. The histological findings were grouped as normal: 0–5 eosinophils/high power field (e/hpf), indeterminate: 6–20 e/hpf, and eosinophilic oesophagitis: ≥21 e/hpf. Abnormal eosinophilic infiltration was defined as ≥6 e/hpf. Results  Abnormal eosinophilic infiltrate was noted in 24 patients (14%). Thirteen (8%) had indeterminate counts, while 11 (6%) had eosinophilic oesophagitis. Compared with normal, those with abnormal oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration were more likely to be male (71% vs. 34%, P = 0.001), have allergies (29% vs. 12%, P = 0.050), have current GER symptoms (42% vs. 18%, P = 0.013), rings (54% vs. 22%, P = 0.002), furrows (21% vs. 1%, P 
ISSN:0269-2813
1365-2036
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04652.x