Endoscopic Findings in Patients Presenting with Dysphagia: Analysis of a National Endoscopy Database

Dysphagia is a common problem and an indication for upper endoscopy. There is no data on the frequency of the different endoscopic findings and whether they change according to demographics or by single versus repeat endoscopy. To determine the prevalence of endoscopic findings in patients with dysphagia and whether findings differ in regard to age, gender, ethnicity, and repeat procedure. This was a retrospective study using a national endoscopic database (CORI). A total of 30,377 patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for dysphagia of which 4,202 patients were repeat endoscopies. Overall frequency of endoscopic findings was determined by gender, age, ethnicity, and single vs. repeat procedures. Esophageal stricture was the most common finding followed by normal, esophagitis/ulcer (EU), Schatzki ring (SR), esophageal food impaction (EFI), and suspected malignancy. Males were more likely to undergo repeat endoscopies and more likely to have stricture, EU, EFI, and suspected malignancy (P = 0.001). Patients 60 years or older had a higher prevalence of stricture, EU, SR, and suspected malignancy (P < 0.0001). Esophageal stricture was most common in white non-Hispanic patients compared to other ethnic groups. In patients undergoing repeat EGD, stricture, SR, EFI, and suspected malignancy were more common (P < 0.0001). The prevalence of endoscopic findings differs significantly by gender, age, and repeat procedure. The most common findings in descending order were stricture, normal, EU, SR, EFI, and suspected malignancy. For patients undergoing a repeat procedure, normal and EU were less common and all other abnormal findings were significantly more common.

from Dysphagia

Advertisements

About Callier Library

Housed at the internationally renowned Callier Center for Communication Disorders, Callier Library a branch facility of the McDermott Library at The University of Texas at Dallas.

Posted on June 21, 2011, in Research. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: