El megaesófago se presenta entre el 5 % y el 20 % de pacientes con acalasia, un trastorno motor esofágico primario reconocido hace más de 300 años, a considerarse en todo paciente con disfagia no explicada por un proceso obstructivo o inflamatorio luego de un estudio endoscópico detallado. Se presenta el caso de un paciente con disfagia progresiva, en quien se documentó megaesófago como complicación de una acalasia de largo tiempo de evolución, no tratada. Se descartó la enfermedad de Chagas mediante enzimoinmunoensayo (ELISA) e inmunofluorescencia indirecta (IFI), tal como recomiendan las guías actuales. Ante la baja frecuencia de esta entidad en nuestro medio y las implicaciones terapéuticas que tiene para los pacientes con acalasia, se realizó una revisión narrativa en la literatura sobre su diagnóstico y alternativas de manejo.

No abstract

Background In Latin America, there are scarce data on the epidemiology of DGBI. The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) Internet survey included 26 countries, four from Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, with a 40.3% prevalence of Rome IV DGBI. We aimed at comparing the prevalence of DGBI and associated factors among these countries. Methods The frequency of DGBI by anatomical region, specific diagnoses, sex, age, diet, healthcare access, anxiety, depression, and HRQOL, were analyzed and compared. Results Subjects included Argentina n = 2057, Brazil = 2004, Colombia = 2007, and Mexico = 2001. The most common DGBI were bowel (35.5%), gastroduodenal (11.9%), and anorectal (10.0%). Argentina had the highest prevalence of functional diarrhea (p = 0.006) and IBS‐D; Brazil, esophageal, gastroduodenal disorders, and functional dyspepsia; Mexico functional heartburn (all <0.001). Overall, DGBI were more common in women vs. men and decreased with age. Bowel disorders were more common in the 18–39 (46%) vs. 40–64‐year (39%) groups. Diet was also different between those with DGBI vs. those without with subtle differences between countries. Subjects endorsing criteria for esophageal, gastroduodenal, and anorectal disorders from Mexico, more commonly consulted physicians for bowel symptoms vs. those from Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia. General practitioners were the most frequently consulted, by Mexicans (50.42%) and Colombians (40.80%), followed by gastroenterologists. Anxiety and depression were more common in DGBI individuals in Argentina and Brazil vs. Mexico and Colombia, and they had lower HRQOL. Conclusions The prevalence of upper and lower DGBI, as well as the burden of illness, psychological impact and HRQOL, differ between these Latin American countries.

No abstract

Background: There is no term for bloating in Spanish and distension is a very technical word. "Inflammation"/"swelling" are the most frequently used expressions for bloating/distension in Mexico, and pictograms are more effective than verbal descriptors (VDs) for bloating/distension in general GI and Rome III-IBS patients. However, their effectiveness in the general population and in subjects with Rome IV-DGBI is unknown. We analyzed the use of pictograms for assessing bloating/distension in the general population in Mexico. Methods: The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) in Mexico(n = 2001) included questions about the presence of VDs "inflammation"/"swelling" and abdominal distension, their comprehension, and pictograms (normal, bloating, distension, both). We compared the pictograms with the Rome IV question about the frequency of experiencing bloating/distension, and with the VDs. Key Results: "Inflammation"/"swelling" was reported by 51.5% and distension by 23.8% of the entire study population; while 1.2% and 25.3% did not comprehend "Inflammation"/"swelling" or distension, respectively. Subjects without (31.8%) or not comprehending "inflammation"/"swelling"/distension (68.4%) reported bloating/distension by pictograms. Bloating and/or distension by the pictograms were much more frequent in those with DGBI: 38.3% (95%CI: 31.7-44.9) vs. without: 14.5% (12.0-17.0); and in subjects with distension by VDs: 29.4% (25.4-33.3) vs. without: 17.2% (14.9-19.5). Among subjects with bowel disorders, those with IBS reported bloating/ distension by pictograms the most (93.8%) and those with functional diarrhea the least (71.4%). Conclusions & Inferences:Pictograms are more effective than VDs for assessing the presence of bloating/distension in Spanish Mexico. Therefore, they should be used to study these symptoms in epidemiological research.