Dysphagia without endoscopically evident disease: to dilate or not?

Dysphagia without endoscopically evident disease: to dilate or not?

OBJECTIVES: It is not known whether patients with symptoms of dysphagia but normal upper endoscopy benefit from empiric esophageal dilation. The aim of this prospective study was to determine whether patients with solid food dysphagia and normal upper endoscopy have symptomatic benefit from empiric dilation using a through-the-scope balloon. METHODS: Patients who were seen for complaints of solid food dysphagia and who had normal endoscopic examinations at our institution from 1998 through 1999 were identified. Those patients who had agreed before sedation to participate in the study, if eligible, were randomized to either sham or balloon dilation using an 18-mm through-the-scope balloon at the time of esophagogastroduodenoscopy. All potentially eligible patients who had given provisional consent completed a dysphagia questionnaire and a 10-cm visual analog dysphagia scale before endoscopy. Follow-up questionnaires were completed on day 1 and at 3 months and 6 months after the procedure. The primary endpoint of the study was the patient's self-assessment of difficulty swallowing, based on the questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients met the study criteria and were randomized to balloon dilation (n = 43) or sham (n = 40). The two groups were comparable in age, sex, severity of baseline dysphagia. and use of antireflux medication. Improvement in dysphagia comparing sham to balloon on day 1 was 66% versus 67% (p = 0.99); at 3 months it was 82% versus 76% (p = 0.56); and at 6 months it was 84% versus 73% (p = 0.38). There were no reported complications in either group. CONCLUSION: The data from this prospective randomized, controlled study do not support the practice of empiric dilation in patients with symptoms of dysphagia without an endoscopically evident cause of dysphagia.