Prevalence and Distribution of Gastric Endoscopy Findings in Non-eosinophilic Esophagitis Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases: Influence of Atrophic Gastritis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective The impact of Helicobacter pylori infection on gastric endoscopic findings in non-eosinophilic esophagitis eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (non-EoE EGIDs) remains unclear. This study investigated the influence of H. pylori infection on the prevalence and distribution of gastric lesions. Methods The details of 75 patients diagnosed with non-EoE EGIDs were retrospectively reviewed. Of the 56 patients with a definitive diagnosis according to the Japanese criteria (any GI tract; ≥20 eosinophils/high-power field), 25 patients with pathologic gastric eosinophilic infiltration (EI) (gastric EI; ≥30 eosinophils/high power field) were investigated in detail. The prevalence and distribution of gastric endoscopy findings were assessed according to the gastric mucosal atrophy status, an indicator of H. pylori infection. Results Erythema (76%) was the most common finding in the gastric EI-positive group, followed by erosions (36%), ulcers (28%), ulcer scars (28%), and edema (24%). None of these lesions differed significantly in frequency between the patients with and without gastric atrophy. When erosions, ulcers, and ulcer scars were unified, they were slightly more common in the gastric bodies of patients with gastric atrophy than those without gastric atrophy; however, no preferential site was found in those without gastric atrophy. We identified six patients with active gastric ulcers, and half had large, deep ulcers with marginal swelling/irregularity. Conclusion Gastric endoscopy findings in non-EoE EGIDs with gastric EI were evenly observed in the stomach, with no specific trend in frequency or distribution depending on atrophic gastritis, an indicator of H. pylori infection. Gastric ulcers in patients with non-EoE EGIDs should be considered in the differential diagnosis of idiopathic peptic ulcers.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.