COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Duodenal hematoma following EGD: comparison with blunt abdominal trauma-induced duodenal hematoma.
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2015 January
BACKGROUND: Duodenal hematoma (DH) is a rare complication of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with duodenal biopsy and uncommon, but better described following blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). We aimed to describe DH incidence and investigate risk factors for DH development post-EGD and compare its features to those post-BAT.
METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched for the diagnosis of DH from 2000 to 2012. Inclusion criteria were patients 0 to 21 years of age who developed a DH following EGD with biopsy or BAT. Exclusion criteria were DH secondary to any other mechanism, EGD performed at another medical center, and insufficient information in the electronic medical record to determine treatments or outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 14 post-EGD and 15 post-BAT patients with DH were included in the study. There were 26,905 EGDs with duodenal biopsies performed during the study period, for an incidence of 1:1922 procedures. Thirteen of 14 (93%) post-EGD DH events occurred between 2007 and 2012 (P < 0.001). The proportion of procedures performed under general anesthesia versus moderate sedation, and performed in the supine position versus left lateral decubitus were close to but did not reach statistical significance. DH-related complications and time to hematoma resolution was similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a 13-year study period, 14 patients developed DH after EGD, for an incidence of 1:1922. Method of sedation and supine positioning of the patient during endoscopy warrant further investigation as potential risks. The clinical course and time to recovery with conservative management are similar between patients with EGD and BAT-induced DH.
METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched for the diagnosis of DH from 2000 to 2012. Inclusion criteria were patients 0 to 21 years of age who developed a DH following EGD with biopsy or BAT. Exclusion criteria were DH secondary to any other mechanism, EGD performed at another medical center, and insufficient information in the electronic medical record to determine treatments or outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 14 post-EGD and 15 post-BAT patients with DH were included in the study. There were 26,905 EGDs with duodenal biopsies performed during the study period, for an incidence of 1:1922 procedures. Thirteen of 14 (93%) post-EGD DH events occurred between 2007 and 2012 (P < 0.001). The proportion of procedures performed under general anesthesia versus moderate sedation, and performed in the supine position versus left lateral decubitus were close to but did not reach statistical significance. DH-related complications and time to hematoma resolution was similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a 13-year study period, 14 patients developed DH after EGD, for an incidence of 1:1922. Method of sedation and supine positioning of the patient during endoscopy warrant further investigation as potential risks. The clinical course and time to recovery with conservative management are similar between patients with EGD and BAT-induced DH.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app