We have located links that may give you full text access.
Accuracy of Endoscopy in Predicting the Depth of Mucosal Injury Following Caustic Ingestion; a Cross-Sectional Study.
Introduction: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is currently considered as the primary method of determining the degree of mucosal injury following caustic ingestion. The present study aimed to evaluate the screening performance characteristics of EGD in predicting the depth of gastrointestinal mucosal injuries following caustic ingestion.
Methods: Adult patients who were referred to emergency department due to ingestion of corrosive materials, over a 7-year period, were enrolled to this diagnostic accuracy study. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as negative and positive likelihood ratios of EGD in predicting the depth of mucosal injury was calculated using pathologic findings as the gold standard.
Results: 54 cases with the mean age of 35 ± 11.2 years were enrolled (59.25% male). Primary endoscopic results defined 28 (51.85%) cases as second grade and 26 (48.14%) as third grade of mucosal injury. On the other hand, pathologic findings reported 21 (38.88%) patients as first grade, 14 (25.92%) as second, and 19 patients (35.18%) as third grade. Sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy for determining grade II tissue injury were 50.00 (23.04-76.96) and 47.50 (31.51-63.87), respectively. These measures were 100.00 (82.35-100) and 80.00 (63.06-91.56), respectively for grade III. Accuracy of EGD was 87.03% for grade III and 48.14% for grade II.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, endoscopic grading of caustic related mucosal injury based on the Zargar's classification has good accuracy in predicting grade III (87%) and fail accuracy in grade II injuries (48%). It seems that we should be cautious in planning treatment for these patients solely based on endoscopic results.
Methods: Adult patients who were referred to emergency department due to ingestion of corrosive materials, over a 7-year period, were enrolled to this diagnostic accuracy study. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as negative and positive likelihood ratios of EGD in predicting the depth of mucosal injury was calculated using pathologic findings as the gold standard.
Results: 54 cases with the mean age of 35 ± 11.2 years were enrolled (59.25% male). Primary endoscopic results defined 28 (51.85%) cases as second grade and 26 (48.14%) as third grade of mucosal injury. On the other hand, pathologic findings reported 21 (38.88%) patients as first grade, 14 (25.92%) as second, and 19 patients (35.18%) as third grade. Sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy for determining grade II tissue injury were 50.00 (23.04-76.96) and 47.50 (31.51-63.87), respectively. These measures were 100.00 (82.35-100) and 80.00 (63.06-91.56), respectively for grade III. Accuracy of EGD was 87.03% for grade III and 48.14% for grade II.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, endoscopic grading of caustic related mucosal injury based on the Zargar's classification has good accuracy in predicting grade III (87%) and fail accuracy in grade II injuries (48%). It seems that we should be cautious in planning treatment for these patients solely based on endoscopic results.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app