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

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: EED is safe in solid food NOD and particularly effective when tissue disruption occurs. EED tissue disruption in NOD does not preclude esophageal dysmotility.