Glucagon Is a Safe and Inexpensive Initial Strategy in Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction

Double-Blind Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Glucagon vs Placebo in the Resolution of Alimentary Esophageal Impaction

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of glucagon vs placebo in resolving esophageal foreign body impaction (EFBI), as well as the length of the procedure and adverse events.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial involving consecutive patients diagnosed with alimentary EFBI. Participants were randomized to receive either 1 mg of intravenous glucagon or placebo. All patients underwent upper endoscopy, and adverse events were assessed through a protocolized telephonic interview 7 days later.

RESULTS

The study included 72 subjects in the glucagon group and 68 in the placebo group. The foreign body was not identified in 23.6% of subjects in the glucagon group and 20.6% of subjects in the placebo group (difference 3%, 95% confidence interval -10.7% to 16.8%, P = 0.67). The median time required to remove the foreign body was similar in both groups 4 minutes (range 2-10) in the glucagon group and 3.5 minutes (range 2-7) in the placebo group (difference 0.5 minutes, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 2.3; P = 0.59). The most common adverse event reported in both groups was mild pharyngeal pain.

DISCUSSION

Glucagon is no more effective than placebo in resolving EFBI or shortening the time required to remove the foreign body (EUDRA-CT number 2019-004920-40).

Efficacy of cola ingestion for oesophageal food bolus impaction: open label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of cola in resolving complete oesophageal food bolus impaction.

DESIGN

Open label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Emergency departments of five Dutch hospitals at the secondary and tertiary level, between 22 December 2019 and 16 June 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

51 adults presenting with complete oesophageal food bolus impaction, defined as a sudden inability to pass saliva after consumption of foods. Patients who ingested meat that contained bones, and patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of IV or higher were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

28 patients in the intervention group were instructed to consume 25 mL cups of cola at intervals up to a maximum total volume of 200 mL. 23 patients in the control group awaited spontaneous passage. In either group, if complete resolution of symptoms did not occur, endoscopic removal was performed following current guidelines: within 6 hours for patients with complete obstruction, and within 24 hours for partial obstruction. In case of complete resolution of symptoms, elective diagnostic endoscopy was required.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Improvement of oesophageal food bolus obstruction as reported by patients (ie, aggregate of complete and partial passage), and evaluation of complete passage. The secondary outcome was any intervention related adverse event.

RESULTS

Cola did not have a meaningful effect on the improvement of food bolus obstruction (17/28 (61%) intervention v 14/23 (61%) control; odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 3.1; relative risk reduction 0.0, 95% confidence interval -0.55 to 0.36; P>0.99). Complete passage was reported more often in the intervention group but this difference was not significant (12/28 (43%) intervention v 8/23 (35%) control; odds ratio 1.4 (0.45 to 4.4); relative risk reduction -0.23 (-1.5 to 0.39); P=0.58). No severe adverse events occurred. However, six (21%) patients in the intervention group experienced temporary discomfort after drinking cola.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, cola consumption did not lead to a higher rate of improvement of complete oesophageal food bolus impaction. Given the lack of adverse events in the treatment group and some events of resolution after treatment, cola might be considered as a first line treatment, but should not delay any planning of endoscopic management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register (currently International Clinical Trial Registry Platform) NL8312.

Postendoscopy Care for Patients Presenting With Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction: A Population-Based Multicenter Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal food bolus impactions (FBI) are a common gastrointestinal emergency. Appropriate management includes not only index endoscopy for disimpaction but also medical follow-up and treatment for the underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the appropriateness of postendoscopy care for patients with FBI and assessed patient-related, physician-related, and system-related factors that may contribute to loss to follow-up.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based, multicenter cohort study of all adult patients undergoing endoscopy for FBI in the Calgary Health Zone, Canada, from 2016 to 2018. Appropriate postendoscopy care was defined by a composite of a clinical or endoscopic follow-up visit, appropriate investigations (e.g., manometry), or therapy (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors or endoscopic dilation). Predictors of inappropriate care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 519 patients underwent endoscopy for FBI: 25.2% (131/519) did not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. Half of the patients (55.3%, 287/519) underwent follow-up endoscopy or attended clinic, and among this group, 22.3% (64/287) had a change in their initial diagnosis after follow-up, including 3 new cases of esophageal cancer. Patients in whom a suspected underlying esophageal pathology was not identified at the index endoscopy were 7-fold (adjusted odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 4.49-11.78, P < 0.001) more likely to receive inappropriate postendoscopy follow-up and treatment, even after adjusting for age, sex, rural residence, timing of endoscopy, weekend presentation, and endoscopic interventions.

DISCUSSION

One-quarter of patients presenting with an FBI do not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. This is strongly associated with failure to identify a potential underlying pathology at index presentation.

Comparable Efficacy for Push Versus Pull Technique in Esophageal Food Impaction: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal food impaction (EFI) is a common GI emergency. Push and pull methods are used currently for EFI retrieval. We aim to review current available literature to compare success rates and evaluate adverse event rates of the two techniques.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, KCI-Korean Journal Index, SciELO and Global Index Medicus. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated when comparing the dichotomous variables. We aimed to evaluate technical success and adverse events for EFI comparing push and pull technique on single arm and comparator analysis.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded a total of 126 articles. 18 studies with 3528 participants were included. The technical success rate was 97.5% (CI 96.6-99.2%) in the push and 88.4% (CI 72.8-98.7%) in the pull technique with no statistical difference on comparator analysis. Overall rate of adverse events was 4.03% (CI 0.9-5.0%) in the push technique and 2.22% (CI 0-2.9%) in the pull technique with no statistical difference on comparator analysis (OR 95% CI 0.464-2.782, p = 0.78, I² = 31.54%). There was no statistical difference between rate of lacerations and perforations either between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques have acceptable clinical outcomes which appear within standard of care. Operator experience and individual clinical scenarios should guide decision-making regarding technique selection.

Esophageal disease and loss to follow-up are common among patients who experience non-endoscopic resolution of food impaction

Many patients who experience esophageal food impaction (EFI) will have non-endoscopic resolution (NER) of their EFI, but this population is poorly defined. The purpose of this study is to describe the outcomes of patients with NER of EFI. A retrospective chart review from 2007 to 2017 was performed at a single tertiary care center. There were 593 patients who presented to the emergency department with EFI, defined as recent soft food ingestion and inability to tolerate oral secretions. Adequate follow-up was defined as a gastroenterology clinic visit or EGD within 6 months of EFI. Out of these, 149 patients (25.1%) had NER of their EFI. Patients with NER were less likely to have adequate follow-up than those with ER (45.0% vs. 59.5%, P = 0.003). Of those without established esophageal disease and NER, 92.5% had significant esophageal pathology on endoscopy, including stricture (34.0%), features of eosinophilic esophagitis (30.2%), and esophagitis (22.6%). Recurrent EFI occurred at a similar rate between patients with NER and ER (9.4% vs. 14.6%, P = 0.14). Patients with established esophageal disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51, P = 0.04) and recommendation to follow-up at time of EFI (OR: 6.06, P < 0.001) were most likely to follow up after EFI. Approximately, a quarter of patients with EFI will experience NER of their EFI. Virtually, all patients (92.5%) were found to have esophageal disease warranting longitudinal care. Importantly, follow-up rates are significantly lower in those with NER than their counterparts requiring EGD. Our study highlights the need to develop standardized protocols that improve follow-up for patients after NER of EFI.

Esophageal foreign bodies in adults: systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Esophageal Foreign Body (FB) impaction represents a major challenge for healthcare providers. Aim of this systematic review was to analyse the current literature evidence on prevalence, presentation, treatment, and outcomes of impacted esophageal FB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted between 2000 and 30th June 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies matched the inclusion criteria. The total number of included patients was 13,092. The cervical esophagus was the most frequent impaction site (67%) and sharp-pointed objects were the most common FB (38.1%). Retrosternal pain (78%), dysphagia (48%), and odynophagia (43.4%) were the most common symptoms. A flexible or rigid endoscopic approach was adopted in 65.1% and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Overall, 17.8% of patients had a complication related to the impacted esophageal FB or to the endoscopic manoeuvers. A surgical approach was required in 3.4% of patients. The overall mortality was 0.85%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is the upfront treatment in patients with esophageal perforation or endoscopically irretrievable esophageal FB. A minimally invasive approach can be adopted in selected patients. Effective prevention of FB impaction should focus on accurate diagnostic work-up to search for an underlying motility disorder after a first episode of esophageal impaction, even if transient and self-resolving.

Effervescent agents in acute esophageal food impaction

Acute esophageal food impaction (AEFI) occurs frequently. Few data are published describing the use of effervescent agents (EAs) for treatment of AEFI. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, cost, and safety of EAs in the treatment of AEFI. We retrospectively identified patients aged 18 years and older who were seen in the emergency department of 2 hospitals in 1 metropolitan area from January 1, 2011, through April 4, 2016, who had a clinical diagnosis of AEFI. We collected and analyzed data on outcomes and cost associated with the use of EAs, glucagon, and no pharmacologic therapy. During the study period, 239 patients with AEFI met the inclusion criteria. Of the 45 patients who received EA monotherapy, 25 (55.6%) responded successfully, compared with 11 of 62 (17.7%) who received glucagon monotherapy (P < .001) and 16 of 93 (17.2%) who had no therapy (P < .001). Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) who were given both glucagon and EA responded successfully. The other 177 patients had endoscopy, which was successful in all cases. Median hospitalization charges for patients who responded successfully to EA alone were $1,136, compared with $2,602 for responders to glucagon alone (P < .001) and $1,194 for those who cleared their bolus spontaneously (P < .001). All patients who received EA monotherapy had lower median hospitalization costs ($2,384) than all patients who received glucagon monotherapy ($9,289; P = .03) and all patients who received neither ($8,386; P = .02). Effervescent agents are a safe, effective, and cost-saving initial strategy in the treatment of acute esophageal food impaction.

Glucagon for Relief of Acute Esophageal Foreign Bodies and Food Impactions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Glucagon is frequently used for the relief of esophageal impactions. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucagon for acute esophageal foreign body and food impactions. PubMed, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 1, 2018. Retrospective, observational, and randomized controlled trials assessing glucagon for the relief of acute esophageal foreign body and food impaction were included. There were no language or age restrictions. Only studies conducted on humans and with a comparator (e.g., control or placebo) were included. Study quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Quality of evidence analysis was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. A total of 1988 studies were identified, and five studies with a total of 1185 subjects were included. Treatment success occurred in 213 of 706 (30.2%) patients in the glucagon group and 158 of 479 (33.0%) patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.17, p=0.42). There was minimal statistical heterogeneity (I²  = 14%, p=0.33). No publication bias was identified. Adverse events were identified in 24 (15.0%) patients in the glucagon group and 0 (0%) patients in the placebo group (risk difference [RD] 0.18, 95% CI 0.03-0.33, p=0.02). Vomiting events occurred more frequently in the glucagon group (17 of 160 [10.6%] vs 0 of 53 [0%]) but was not statistically significant (RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03-0.17, p=0.19). Glucagon was not associated with a difference in treatment success but had a higher rate of adverse events for the treatment of esophageal foreign body and food impaction. Further controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of glucagon with adequate power to assess adverse events.

The evolution of treatment and complications of esophageal food impaction

Background

Esophageal food impaction is relatively common and increasing over time. Treatment ranges from medications to invasive endoscopic therapies. The endoscopic push technique has been advised against in favor of endoscopic retrieval for safety concerns. We sought to assess use patterns and safety of treatments for food impaction in a population-based retrospective review.

Methods

A database of recorded esophageal food impactions in Olmsted County, MN, USA, from 1975-2011 was reviewed for patient demographics, treatment, and complications.

Results

A total of 645 impactions occurred, with increasing incidence over time, peaking at 23.2 per year (2000-2004). Medications (almost exclusively glucagon) were successful in relieving impactions 34.5% of the time when trialed. Urgent endoscopy was common (74.0%), as was the need for endoscopic therapy (67.1%). Endoscopic therapy increased over time, with the endoscopic push technique becoming most common. Esophageal complications (deep mucosal injury or perforation) increased over time but remained rare (peak 11%). There was no difference in complications between push and retrieval techniques.

Conclusions

The endoscopic push technique is safe in comparison to endoscopic retrieval in esophageal food impactions. While complications surrounding impaction have increased, they remain rare. Medication trials are reasonable, as long as they do not delay endoscopy, and may prevent the need for emergent endoscopy in one-third of cases.

Cola therapy for oesophageal food bolus impactions a case series

Introduction

This retrospective case series describes the use of cola to immediately treat complete oesophageal food bolus obstructions in the emergency centre. Short of emergent endoscopy – which is invasive, expensive, not without adverse events, and often unavailable in low-resource settings – no other proven therapies exist to relieve oesophageal food impactions.

Methods

We performed a chart review of adults with complete oesophageal food bolus obstructions presenting to two Dutch emergency centres. Our primary outcome was cola’s success rate in resolving the obstruction. Our secondary outcome was adverse event occurrence.

Results

We identified 22 cola interventions in 19 patients, the majority of whom (77.3%) were male. The median age was 59 years (IQR 29–73). All presentations were due to meat impaction. Endoscopy revealed relevant upper gastrointestinal pathology in 54.5%. When initiated in the emergency centre, cola successfully resolved 59% of complete oesophageal obstructions. No adverse events were reported in patients successfully treated with cola.

Discussion

While keenly aware of our retrospective study’s limitations, we found a promising success rate for cola as an acute intervention for oesophageal food bolus impactions. We registered no adverse events attributable to cola. Also, given that cola is cheap, widely available and seemingly safe we believe it can be considered in patients with oesophageal obstructions due to food, either as pre-endoscopy treatment or in case endoscopy is not available at all. We think our findings provide an impetus for prospective research on this intervention.

Early referral for endoscopy is the most appropriate management strategy in cases of food bolus obstruction

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the characteristics of patients presenting with oesophageal food bolus obstruction (FBO) who achieve early resolution of symptoms, and to assess the impact of medical therapies on the overall time course of FBO.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed in a university teaching hospital with regional acute endoscopy services. Patients presenting with symptoms of FBO were identified through clinical coding and demographic, clinical and endoscopic data extracted from the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was the time to resolution defined as the earliest of symptom resolution, endoscopic or surgical intervention or discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients presented with symptoms of FBO. Twenty-seven (23.3%) had early resolution of symptoms and were discharged from the ED without acute endoscopy, the remainder were admitted for further management. Patients discharged from the ED presented to hospital sooner after the onset of symptoms (137 vs 288 min, P < 0.05), but did not differ from those admitted in any other characteristic. Seventy-one (61.2%) patients received medical therapy. There was no statistical difference in the time to resolution between those who received medical therapy and those who did not. Furthermore, the use of medical therapy was associated with a delay in referral for endoscopy (140 vs 100 min, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Time from symptom onset to presentation is the only predictor of early resolution from FBO, while medical therapy is ineffective in relieving obstruction and may delay definitive therapy. We recommend the use of an institutional management plan to facilitate early access to endoscopy in cases of FBO.

Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 index and Cochrane Q test.

Results

Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06; p = 1.00). The pooled OR of iatrogenic perforation, other complications, and overall complications were 2.87 (95% CI 0.96-8.61; p = 0.06), 1.09 (95% CI 0.38-3.18; p = 0.87), and 1.50 (95% CI 0.53-4.25; p = 0.44), respectively. There was no mortality.

Conclusions

FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.

Management of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Disease While at Sea

Management of complex acute surgical pathology in austere environments necessitates rapid evaluation and resource appropriate management to avoid time-associated morbidity and potentially mortality. Obstructive upper gastrointestinal (UGI) pathologies can be particularly challenging and associated with significant morbidity. Herein, we present six patients with UGI obstructions encountered over the course of an 8-mo deployment onboard a US Navy Aircraft Carrier. Each patient presented to our medical department with signs and symptoms of obstructive UGI pathology including one gastric volvulus requiring operative management at sea, one with a new diagnosis of achalasia requiring transportation and continental United States outpatient evaluation, and four patients with food impaction requiring urgent endoscopic management. Although UGI pathology is seldom encountered at sea, definitive surgical interventions, including prompt evaluation and management of these acute pathologies, can be performed in an austere environment. We wish to call attention to these potential encounters in order that underway deployed medical units and supporting resources ashore are prepared and equipped to intervene on acute UGI obstructive pathology.