Large-Caliber Empiric Esophageal Dilation Results in Sustained Improvement for Selected Patients With Nonobstructive Dysphagia.

Abstract

Empiric esophageal dilation (EED) remains a controversial practice for managing nonobstructive dysphagia (NOD) secondary to concerns about safety and efficacy. We examine symptom response, presence of tissue disruption, and adverse events (AEs) after EED. We examined large-caliber bougie EED for NOD at 2 tertiary referral centers: retrospectively evaluating for AEs. Esophageal manometry diagnoses were also reviewed. We then prospectively assessed EED's efficacy using the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System disrupted swallowing questionnaire to assess dysphagia at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months after EED. Treatment success was defined by improvement in patient-reported outcome scores. AE rate for large-caliber dilation in the retrospective cohort of 180 patients undergoing EED for NOD was low (0.5% perforations, managed conservatively). Visible tissue disruption occurred in 18% of patients, with 47% occurring in the proximal esophagus. Obstructive motility disorders were found more frequently in patients with tissue disruption compared with those without (44% vs 14%, P = 0.05). The primary outcome, the mean disrupted swallowing T -score was 60.1 ± 9.1 at baseline, 56.1 ± 9.5 at 1 month ( P = 0.03), 57 ± 9.6 at 3 months ( P = 0.10), and 56 ± 10 at 6 months ( P = 0.02) (higher scores note more symptoms). EED resulted in a significant and durable improvement in dysphagia and specifically solid food dysphagia among patients with tissue disruption. EED is safe in solid food NOD and particularly effective when tissue disruption occurs. EED tissue disruption in NOD does not preclude esophageal dysmotility.