Comparison of the efficacy of diltiazem versus fluoxetine in the treatment of distal esophageal spasm: A randomized-controlled-trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Distal esophageal spasm is an uncommon esophageal motility disorder presenting with non-cardiac chest pain and dysphagia. The main goal of therapy is symptom relief with pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical therapies. Pharmacologic treatment is less invasive and is the preferred method of choice. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of diltiazem versus fluoxetine in the treatment of distal esophageal spasm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 125 patients with distal esophageal spasm diagnosed using endoscopy, barium esophagogram, and manometry were evaluated. Patients were divided into diltiazem and fluoxetine groups and received a 2-month trial of diltiazem + omeprazole or fluoxetine + omeprazole, respectively. Of 125 patients, 55 were lost to follow up and 70 were eligible for final analysis. Clinical signs and symptoms were assessed before and after therapy using four validated questionnaires: Eckardt score, short form-36, heartburn score, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. RESULTS: Both regimens significantly relieved symptoms (a decrease in mean Eckardt score of 2.57 and 3.18 for diltiazem and fluoxetine groups, respectively; and a decrease in mean heartburn score by 0.89 and 1.03 for diltiazem and fluoxetine groups, respectively). Patients' quality of life improved based on short form-36 (an increase in mean score of 2.37 and 3.95 for fluoxetine and diltiazem groups, respectively). There was no relationship between patients' improvement and severity of symptoms. Psychological findings based on the hospital anxiety and depression scale were inconsistent (a decrease in mean of 0.143 and 0.57 for fluoxetine and diltiazem groups, respectively; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine and diltiazem were effective for clinical symptom relief in patients with distal esophageal spasm, but were not promising for improving psychological symptoms. Neither regimen was superior in terms of efficacy. Consequently, it is key to consider side effects and comorbidities when choosing a therapy.

Comparison of portal hypertensive gastropathy and gastric antral vascular ectasia: an update.

Portal hypertensive gastropathy (PHG) and gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) are two distinct entities that are frequently mistaken with each other, because they present with similar manifestations. This issue may cause catastrophic outcomes, as each one of them has a unique pathophysiology, thereby making their management approaches completely different. There are clinical clues that help physicians distinguish these two. Direct vision via upper endoscopy is often mandatory to establish the diagnosis, and sometimes biopsy is required. In this review, we sought to discuss different aspects of both conditions and highlight clinical evidence that may help in identifying and managing the disease appropriately.