Esophageal dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis: safety and predictors of clinical response and complications.
BACKGROUND
Esophageal strictures resulting from eosinophilic esophagitis present management challenges, and high rates of rents and perforation have been reported.


OBJECTIVE
To assess the safety of esophageal dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis and to characterize predictors of both clinical response and complications of the procedure.


METHODS
Retrospective study of the University of North Carolina eosinophilic esophagitis database.


METHODS
Tertiary care referral center.


METHODS
Cases of eosinophilic esophagitis were defined as per consensus guidelines.


METHODS
Dilation with either Savary or through-the-scope balloon techniques.


METHODS
Complications (deep mucosal rents, contained or free perforation, and chest pain requiring medical attention or hospitalization) and the global clinical symptom response.


RESULTS
Of 130 eosinophilic esophagitis cases identified, 70 dilations (12 Savary, 58 balloon) were performed in 36 patients. Esophageal size improved from 12 to 16 mm (P < .001), with an overall symptom response rate of 83%. The only predictor of clinical response was final dilation diameter. There were 5 complications (7%): 2 deep mucosal rents and 3 episodes of chest pain. There were no perforations. There was one hospitalization for chest pain. All complications occurred in patients being treated with topical steroids, who underwent balloon dilation. Complications were associated with younger age (23 vs 42; P = .02) and more dilations (4 vs 1.7; P = .009).


CONCLUSIONS
Single center, retrospective study.


CONCLUSIONS
Esophageal dilation can be performed in eosinophilic esophagitis with low rates of tears, chest pain, and hospitalization. No perforations were found in our database. The effectiveness of dilation was best when a larger esophageal caliber was achieved, but patients undergoing more procedures was associated with complications.
Dellon
Evan S
ES
Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Gibbs
Wood B
WB
Rubinas
Tara C
TC
Fritchie
Karen J
KJ
Madanick
Ryan D
RD
Woosley
John T
JT
Shaheen
Nicholas J
NJ
D000328:Adult; D002404:Catheterization / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000379:methods*; D002637:Chest Pain / Q000209:etiology*; D003680:Deglutition Disorders / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy; D004106:Dilatation / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000379:methods*; D004802:Eosinophilia / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy*; D004939:Esophageal Perforation / Q000209:etiology*; D004940:Esophageal Stenosis / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy*; D004941:Esophagitis / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy*; D004945:Esophagoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D004947:Esophagus / Q000293:injuries*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult