Extracellular Eosinophil Granule Protein Deposition in Ringed Esophagus with Sparse Eosinophils.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) remains difficult to classify because of varying presentations. Not uncommonly, patients present with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and have esophageal changes on endoscopy resembling EoE but without >15 eosinophils/HPF. Patients with low numbers of eosinophils in esophageal biopsy specimens may have esophageal changes and symptomatic disease brought about by eosinophil granule protein deposition without recognizable intact cells. AIM: To determine whether extracellular eosinophil granule protein deposition is present in the esophagi of patients with low eosinophil numbers who have clinical symptoms and characteristic endoscopic esophageal changes of EoE including ringed esophagus (RE). METHODS: Esophageal biopsy specimens were studied from eight EoE patients with >15 eosinophils per high power field (HPF) and nine patients with RE (<15 eosinophils/HPF). The specimens were analyzed for eosinophil granule proteins, major basic protein 1 (eMBP1) and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), by indirect immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Both EoE and RE showed positive EDN and eMBP1 extracellular deposition; control esophagus showed minimal or none. Comparing EoE and RE, extracellular EDN and eMBP1 were similar except that EDN in EoE was greater in the distal esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of assessing eosinophil granule protein deposition in esophageal disease with potential eosinophil involvement. Persistent/progressive esophageal changes may be brought about by eosinophil granule proteins despite low numbers of intact cells. The meaning of "resolution" in EoE may need to be redefined based on numbers of esophageal eosinophils, extracellular eosinophil granule protein deposition, and subsequent clinical course of patients.

Feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: experience of early versus delayed feeding.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated that feeding ≤4 hours after placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube is a reasonable option. Many physicians, however, continue to delay feedings until the next day or 24 hours; therefore, we evaluated the safety and effect of early feeding (≤4 hours) after PEG placement in our tertiary care center. METHODS: A retrospective study of 444 patients who underwent PEG between June 2006 and December 2011 was performed. Early feeding was defined as feeding ≤4 hours and delayed feeding was defined as feeding >4 hours. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test and the Student t test. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients underwent PEG between June 2006 and December 2011. A majority of PEGs were performed on inpatients by gastroenterologists. The mean time of feeding after PEG was 3.2 ± 0.9 hours for the early group (n = 197) and 17.0 ± 10.0 hours for the delayed group (n = 247). No statistically significant differences were noted between the early (≤4 hours) feedings versus the delayed (>4 hours) feedings for overall morality within 30 days (P = 0.72) and overall complications (P = 1.00). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were noted between early versus delayed feeding for 24-hour mortality (P = 1.00), 24- to 72-hour mortality (P = 0.20), and 3-30 days mortality (P = 0.86). For each complication, there were no statistically significant differences noted between the two groups for wound infection (P = 0.52), melena (P = 0.26), vomiting (P = 0.42), leakage (P = 0.41), stomatitis (P = 0.13), aspiration pneumonia (P =1.00), and other complications (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Feeding ≤4 hours after PEG appears to be as safe as delayed feeding. Based on this study and the literature, strong consideration for the majority of patients should be undertaken to begin feeding within 4 hours after PEG.

Endoscopy after acute myocardial infarction: an evaluation of safety.

OBJECTIVES: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (MI) has substantial morbidity and mortality. Several studies have been performed on the safety of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) after MI; however, these studies vary in definitions and results. We evaluated the safety and effect of EGD in patients with acute MI in a tertiary center. METHODS: A retrospective, single tertiary-care center study was undertaken of 87 patients who underwent EGD within 30 days of an acute MI between January 2001 and March 2012. Type of MI (ST segment elevation MI [STEMI] and non-ST segment elevation MI [NSTEMI]), peak troponin I, time from MI to EGD, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score at EGD, cardiac catheterization before EGD, and medical complications within 24 hours of EGD were noted. Medical complications were defined as major complications (death, life-threatening arrhythmias) and minor complications (chest pain, abnormal vital signs, or minor arrhythmias). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients underwent EGD within 30 days of having an MI. No major complications were observed. Minor complications occurred in 27 of 87 patients (31.0%), including mild hypotension, mild bradycardia, or increased chest pain. Patients with STEMI demonstrated statistically significant quicker endoscopy (P = 0.01) and were more likely to undergo cardiac catheterization in advance of EGD (P < 0.01) than those with NSTEMI. No statistically significant differences were noted for peak troponin I (P = 0.21), APACHE II score at EGD (P = 0.55), or minor complications (P = 0.08) among patients with STEMI versus NSTEMI. Cardiac catheterization before EGD did not seem to affect results. Patients with APACHE II scores >16 experienced more minor complications (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: EGD appears relatively safe for the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute MI.

Administration of erythromycin before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has been hypothesized to aid in visualization and reduce the need for second-look endoscopy; however, the results have been controversial. To evaluate further, we performed a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in acute UGIB. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched (March 2013). Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. A meta-analysis for the effect of erythromycin or no erythromycin before endoscopy in UGIB were analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of primary (visualization of gastric mucosa and need for second endoscopy) and secondary (units of blood transfused, length of hospital stay, duration of the procedure) outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration). RESULTS: Six studies (N = 558) met the inclusion criteria. Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in UGIB demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in visualization of the gastric mucosa [odds ratio (OR) 3.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.81 to 6.50, P < 0.01] compared with no erythromycin. In addition, erythromycin infusion before endoscopy resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the need for a second endoscopy (OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.83, P = 0.01), units of blood transfused (WMD - 0.41; 95% CI: -0.82 to -0.01, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospital stay (WMD - 1.51; 95% CI: -2.45 to -0.56, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Erythromycin infusion before endoscopy in patients with UGIB significantly improves visualization of gastric mucosa while decreasing the need for a second endoscopy, units of blood transfused, and duration of hospital stay.