The diagnosis of esophageal eosinophilia is not increased in the summer months.

Smaller studies have suggested seasonal variation of the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis with more patients being diagnosed in the aeroallergen season. We evaluated a large group of adult patients for a seasonal variation of the diagnosis of symptomatic eosinophilic esophageal infiltration. We performed a retrospective review of adult patients from a large Eosinophilic esophagitis database at the Mayo Clinic Rochester. We only included patients from three states in the upper Midwest, who had 15 or more eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, symptomatic dysphagia, and were seen, in our Gastroenterology Clinic between 2000 and 2008. Clinical data were abstracted and the month of diagnosis was determined. The Rayleigh circular test and the Chi-square goodness-of-fit test were used to detect seasonality of symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia diagnosis and seasonality corrected for esophagogastroduodenoscopy monthly volume. The diagnosis of symptomatic eosinophilic esophageal infiltration was made in 372 patients. The mean number of eosinophils was 39.6 per high-power field. The December/January and May/June periods seem to have an increased presentation rate (p = 0.014). Of those tested, reactions to any aeroallergen was present in 69 % (48/70), reactions to >4 aeroallergens in 47 % (33/70) and reactions to any food allergen in 63 % (50/80) of patients. There was no evidence of monthly concentration of symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia diagnosis in the subgroups of patients with any positive aeroallergen, >4 positive aeroallergens, or history of atopy. The diagnosis of symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia is not made more frequently in the summer months.

Occurrence of and risk factors for complications after endoscopic dilation in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Several small series have suggested an increased risk of complications associated with esophageal dilation in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). OBJECTIVE: To quantitate the risk and identify risk factors for esophageal complications in dilation in EoE patients. DESIGN: Retrospective, uncontrolled, single-center study. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 161 EoE patients (mean ± standard deviation age 44.3 ± 15.3 years, 112 men, 49 women, 150 white patients, 10 unknown, 1 Asian). INTERVENTIONS: Through-the-scope balloon or Savary dilation of EoE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The rate of complications defined as deep mucosal tear, major bleeding, or perforation, and determination of risk factors for complications. RESULTS: A total of 293 dilations were performed in 161 patients. Complications reported were deep mucosal tear in 9.2% (n = 27), major bleeding in 0.3% (n = 1), and immediate perforation in 1.0% (n = 3). All patients with perforations were successfully treated medically without surgery (mean ± standard deviation hospital stay 5.3 ± 3.2 days). Factors associated with an increased risk of complications were luminal narrowing in the upper (odds ratio [OR], 5.62; 95% CI, 2.07-15.26; P < .001) and middle third of the esophagus (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 1.64-14.83; P < .005) compared with lower third, luminal stricture unable to be traversed with a standard upper endoscope (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.06-5.83; P = .037), and use of Savary dilator (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.18-5.83; P = .018). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, uncontrolled study. CONCLUSIONS: Deep mucosal tears are common after dilation (9%), but the risk of immediate transluminal perforation with EoE is approximately 1%. The risk of severe complications is increased in patients with more proximal stricture and strictures that initially prevent endoscope passage.