Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia
Background. The value of endoscopy in dyspeptic patients is questionable. Aims. To examine the prevalence of significant endoscopic findings (SEFs) and the utility of alarm features and age in predicting SEFs in outpatients with dyspepsia. Methods. A retrospective analysis of outpatient adults who h...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/3543681 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849686326766469120 |
|---|---|
| author | Khaled Abdeljawad Antonios Wehbeh Emad Qayed |
| author_facet | Khaled Abdeljawad Antonios Wehbeh Emad Qayed |
| author_sort | Khaled Abdeljawad |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background. The value of endoscopy in dyspeptic patients is questionable. Aims. To examine the prevalence of significant endoscopic findings (SEFs) and the utility of alarm features and age in predicting SEFs in outpatients with dyspepsia. Methods. A retrospective analysis of outpatient adults who had endoscopy for dyspepsia. Demographic variables, alarm features, and endoscopic findings were recorded. We defined SEFs as peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis, malignancy, stricture, or findings requiring specific therapy. Results. Of 650 patients included in the analysis, 51% had a normal endoscopy. The most common endoscopic abnormality was nonerosive gastritis (29.7%) followed by nonerosive duodenitis (7.2%) and LA-class A esophagitis (5.4%). Only 10.2% had a SEF. Five patients (0.8%) had malignancy. SEFs were more likely present in patients with alarm features (12.6% versus 5.4%, p=0.004). Age ≥ 55 and presence of any alarm feature were associated with SEFs (aOR 1.8 and 2.3, resp.). Conclusion. Dyspeptic patients have low prevalence of SEF. The presence of any alarm feature and age ≥ 55 are associated with higher risk of SEF. Endoscopy in young patients with no alarm features has a low yield; these patients can be considered for nonendoscopic approach for diagnosis and management. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-b7a8c1d2153d462cad80e7784c7fef2a |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1687-6121 1687-630X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-b7a8c1d2153d462cad80e7784c7fef2a2025-08-20T03:22:45ZengWileyGastroenterology Research and Practice1687-61211687-630X2017-01-01201710.1155/2017/35436813543681Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with DyspepsiaKhaled Abdeljawad0Antonios Wehbeh1Emad Qayed2Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USADepartment of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USADepartment of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USABackground. The value of endoscopy in dyspeptic patients is questionable. Aims. To examine the prevalence of significant endoscopic findings (SEFs) and the utility of alarm features and age in predicting SEFs in outpatients with dyspepsia. Methods. A retrospective analysis of outpatient adults who had endoscopy for dyspepsia. Demographic variables, alarm features, and endoscopic findings were recorded. We defined SEFs as peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis, malignancy, stricture, or findings requiring specific therapy. Results. Of 650 patients included in the analysis, 51% had a normal endoscopy. The most common endoscopic abnormality was nonerosive gastritis (29.7%) followed by nonerosive duodenitis (7.2%) and LA-class A esophagitis (5.4%). Only 10.2% had a SEF. Five patients (0.8%) had malignancy. SEFs were more likely present in patients with alarm features (12.6% versus 5.4%, p=0.004). Age ≥ 55 and presence of any alarm feature were associated with SEFs (aOR 1.8 and 2.3, resp.). Conclusion. Dyspeptic patients have low prevalence of SEF. The presence of any alarm feature and age ≥ 55 are associated with higher risk of SEF. Endoscopy in young patients with no alarm features has a low yield; these patients can be considered for nonendoscopic approach for diagnosis and management.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/3543681 |
| spellingShingle | Khaled Abdeljawad Antonios Wehbeh Emad Qayed Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| title | Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia |
| title_full | Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia |
| title_fullStr | Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia |
| title_full_unstemmed | Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia |
| title_short | Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia |
| title_sort | low prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in outpatients with dyspepsia |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/3543681 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT khaledabdeljawad lowprevalenceofclinicallysignificantendoscopicfindingsinoutpatientswithdyspepsia AT antonioswehbeh lowprevalenceofclinicallysignificantendoscopicfindingsinoutpatientswithdyspepsia AT emadqayed lowprevalenceofclinicallysignificantendoscopicfindingsinoutpatientswithdyspepsia |