Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017:2017:3543681.
doi: 10.1155/2017/3543681. Epub 2017 Jan 22.

Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia

Affiliations

Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia

Khaled Abdeljawad et al. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

References

    1. Talley N. J., Vakil N. Guidelines for the management of dyspepsia. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2005;100(10):2324–2337. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00225.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tack J., Talley N. J. Functional dyspepsia—symptoms, definitions and validity of the Rome III criteria. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2013;10(3):134–141. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2013.14. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tack J., Talley N. J., Camilleri M., et al. Functional Gastroduodenal Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(5):1466–1479. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.059. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Drossman D. A., Hasler W. L. Rome IV—functional GI disorders: disorders of gut-brain interaction. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(6):1257–1261. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.03.035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Castillo E., CamillerI M., Locke III G., et al. A community-based, controlled study of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of dyspepsia. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2004;2(11):985–996. doi: 10.1016/s1542-3565(04)00454-9. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources