Comparative Analysis of Adverse Events After Esophageal Balloon and Bougie Dilations in Children. Issue 5 (May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mark, Jacob A.; Anderson, Bradley T.; Pan, Zhaoxing; Menard-Katcher, Calies; Kramer, Robert E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition. Volume 68:Issue 5(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-05
• Subjects: complications -- endoscopy -- esophageal strictures -- pediatric esophageal dilation -- safety -- Savary dilation; Children -- Nutrition -- Periodicals; Pediatric gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Infants -- Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutrition disorders in children -- Periodicals; Child Nutrition -- Periodicals; Digestive System -- growth & development -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal Diseases -- Periodicals; Infant Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutrition Disorders -- Periodicals; Child; 618.923
• DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002237
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-2116

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: Pneumatic balloon and bougie dilation are widely used methods for pediatric esophageal dilation. There are no studies directly comparing the safety of these techniques in pediatric patients. This study compared adverse events (AEs) of balloon and bougie dilation in children at a single institution. Methods: AEs were identified by means of a prospective clinical registry of all procedure related AEs from 2012 to 2015 at a single institution. Identified AEs underwent retrospective review of procedural and clinical details. The category of each AE was recorded and severity was assigned using a 5-point scoring system. AEs were compared between balloon and bougie dilation for different severities. Results: There were 105 patients who underwent 246 dilation sessions. Balloon dilation was performed more commonly (n = 190, 77%) as compared to Maloney dilators (n = 56, 23%). Patients with balloon dilation were younger (3.0 vs 14.5 years, P = 0.0001) and more likely to have strictures from caustic ingestion (42% vs 2%, P < 0.0001) or surgical anastomoses (34% vs 5% P < 0.0001). Bougie dilation was used more commonly in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (77% vs 7%, P < 0.0001)). In multivariate analysis, each year of increasing age was associated with a 12% increase in any AEs ( P = 0.015), but no difference in clinically significant AEs (grade 2 or higher) was identified between dilation methods. Conclusions: Bougie and balloon dilation did not have significant differences in AE rates, but the patient populations differed between the 2 methods. The dilation method should depend on stricture characteristics and endoscopist expertise with each method.