Acute food bolus impaction in the esophagus

Comparison of Cap-Assisted vs Conventional Endoscopic Technique for Management of Food Bolus Impaction in the Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

"Push" or "pull" techniques with the use of snares, forceps, baskets, and grasping devices are conventionally used to manage esophageal food bolus impaction (FBI). A novel cap-assisted technique has recently been advocated to reduce time taken for food bolus (FB) removal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the cap-assisted technique against conventional methods of esophageal FB removal in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with esophageal FBI requiring endoscopic removal, from 3 Australian tertiary hospitals between 2017 and 2019, were randomized to either the cap-assisted technique or the conventional technique. Primary outcomes were technical success and FB retrieval time. Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, en bloc removal rate, procedure-related complication, length of hospital stay, and cost of consumables.

RESULTS

Over 24 months, 342 patients with esophageal FBI were randomized to a cap-assisted (n = 171) or conventional (n = 171) technique. Compared with the conventional approach, the cap-assisted technique was associated with (i) shorter FB retrieval time (4.5 ± 0.5 minutes vs 21.7 ± 0.9 minutes, P < 0.001), (ii) shorter total procedure time (23.0 ± 0.6 minutes vs 47.0 ± 1.3 minutes, P < 0.0001), (iii) higher technical success rate (170/171 vs 160/171, P < 0.001), (iv) higher rate of en bloc removal (159/171 vs 48/171, P < 0.001), and (v) lower rate of procedure-related mucosal tear and bleeding (0/171 vs 13/171, P < 0.001). There were no major adverse events or deaths within 30 days in either group. The total cost of consumables was higher in the conventional group (A$19,644.90 vs A$6,239.90).

DISCUSSION

This multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed that the cap-assisted technique is more effective and less costly than the conventional approach and should be first-line treatment for esophageal FBI.

Conservative management of oesophageal soft food bolus impaction

BACKGROUND

Impaction of a soft food bolus in the oesophagus causes dysphagia and regurgitation. If the bolus does not pass spontaneously, then the patient is at risk of aspiration, dehydration, perforation, and death. Definitive management is with endoscopic intervention, recommended within 24 hours. Prior to endoscopy, many patients undergo a period of observation, awaiting spontaneous disimpaction, or may undergo enteral or parenteral treatments to attempt to dislodge the bolus. There is little consensus as to which of these conservative strategies is safe and effective to be used in this initial period, before resorting to definitive endoscopic management for persistent impaction.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-endoscopic conservative treatments in the management of soft food boluses impacted within the oesophagus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases, using relevant search terms: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. The date of the search was 18 August 2019. We screened the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews on the topic to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction, in adults and children, reporting the incidence of disimpaction (confirmed radiologically or clinically by return to oral diet) without the need for endoscopic intervention. We did not include studies focusing on sharp or solid object impaction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 890 unique records through the electronic searches. We excluded 809 clearly irrelevant records and retrieved 81 records for further assessment. We subsequently included one randomised controlled trial that met the eligibility criteria, which was conducted in four Swedish centres and randomised 43 participants to receive either intravenous diazepam followed by glucagon, or intravenous placebos. The effect of the active substances compared with placebo on rates of disimpaction without intervention is uncertain, as the numbers from this single study were small, and the rates were similar (38% versus 32%; risk ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 2.75, P = 0.69). The certainty of the evidence using GRADE for this outcome is low. Data on adverse events were lacking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently inadequate data to recommend the use of any enteral or parenteral treatments in the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction. There is also inadequate data regarding potential adverse events from the use of these treatments, or from potential delays in definitive endoscopic management. Caution should be exercised when using any conservative management strategies in these patients.