Background & Aims: Little is known about esophageal dilation as a long-term treatment eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We examined the impact of a “dilate and wait” strategy on symptoms and safety of patients with EoE.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included two groups of EoE patients: those who underwent a dilation-predominant approach, defined as >3 dilations as EoE sole therapy or for histologically refractory disease (>15 eos/hpf); and those who had routine care, defined as <3 dilations or histologic response. Characteristics of the groups were compared and outcomes for the dilation-only group assessed.
Results: Of 205 patients, 53 (26%) received the dilation-predominant strategy (n=408 dilations total), most commonly because of histologic treatment non-response (75%). These patients were younger (33 vs 41 yrs, p=0.003), had a narrower baseline esophageal diameter (9.8 vs 11.5mm, p=0.005), underwent more dilations (7.7 vs 3.4, p <0.001), but achieved a smaller final diameter (15.7 vs 16.7mm, p=0.01) compared to routine care. With this strategy, 30 patients (57%) had ongoing symptom improvement, with esophageal caliber change independently associated with symptom response (aOR 1.79; 95%CI 1.17-2.78); 26 (49%) used the strategy as a bridge to clinical trials. Over a median follow-up of 1001 days (IQR 581-1710), there were no deaths or dilation-related perforations, but there were 9 ER visits, including 1 for post-dilation bleeding and 4 for food impaction.
Conclusions: A dilation-predominant long-term treatment strategy allows for symptom control or bridge to clinical trials for patients with difficult to treat EoE. Close follow-up and monitoring for complications is required.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.