149 DIFFERENCES IN TRANSABDOMINAL ULTRASONOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS AMONG PATIENTS COMPLAINING OF ESOPHAGEAL DYSPHAGIA. (17th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Manabe, Noriaki; Ayaki, Maki; Nakamura, Jun; Fujita, Minoru; Suehiro, Mitsuhiko; Kawamoto, Hirofumi; Kamada, Tomoari; Yamatsuji, Tomoki; Naomoto, Yoshio; Haruma, Ken
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the esophagus. Volume 34(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-09-17
• Subjects: Esophagus -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.32
• DOI: 10.1093/dote/doab052.149
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-8694

Abstract

Abstract: : Dysphagia is a symptom suggestive of severe underlying pathology, although its causes include organic and non-organic disorders. A balance must be struck between the potential complications of any invasive investigation and its diagnostic utility, especially for elderly patients with dysphagia. The aim of this study was to investigate whether transabdominal ultrasonography (TUS) can differentiate among patients complaining of esophageal dysphagia including achalasia, distal esophageal spasms (DES), neoplasms involving the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) and healthy controls. Methods: All patients complained of esophageal dysphagia, while healthy controls had no symptoms originating from esophagus. TUS was performed in 50 patients with achalasia, 17 DES patients, 10 patients with neoplasms, and 39 sex- and age-matched controls. All studies were performed with a 3.5 MHz real time curved array scanner and using an electronic caliper to measure esophageal wall thickness and the maximum esophageal diameter at 3 cm from EGJ. Manometric diagnoses were made based on the Chicago classification ver.3. The cutoff value of each TUS parameter was then calculated. Specificity and sensitivity in making a diagnosis of each disease were determined. Results: There were significantly differences in the TUS parameters among four groups (Fig). The cutoff value of diameter of esophageal lumen to differentiate achalasia from other 3 groups was calculated as 13.1 mm (sensitivity, 0.96; specificity, 0.93), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99, and that of esophageal wall thickness to differentiate both the tumor and DES groups from the other two groups was 3.5 mm (sensitivity, 0.64; specificity, 0.62), respectively. Using these parameters, sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis was 0.56 and 0.95 in achalasia, 1.00 and 0.24 in DES, and 1.00 and 0.21 in tumors. Conclusion: TUS is a useful, non-invasive diagnostic aid in differentiating patients with primary achalasia from those with other causes of dysphagia.