Is EGD Needed in all Patients after Suicidal or Exploratory Caustic Ingestions?

Abstract

Background: Caustic ingestions are relatively uncommon, but remain a significant source of morbidity. Patients with caustic injury often undergo an urgent EGD, although it is not clear if an EGD is routinely needed in an asymptomatic patient. The study has two primary objectives; 1) to determine the utility of routine EGD in asymptomatic suicidal caustic ingestions; 2) to determine if asymptomatic unintentional acidic ingestions can be managed with observation alone, similar to basic ingestions.

Methods: This retrospective study, which took place at 14 hospitals in three countries evaluated all patients who presented with a caustic ingestion between 2014-2020. The presence of symptoms and esophageal injury, demographic information, pH of ingested substance, reason for the ingestion, and outcome were recorded.

Results: 409 patients were identified; 203 (46.9%) were male. The median (IQR) age was 18 (4-31) years; overall range 10 months to 78 years. Suicidal ingestions accounted for 155 (37.9%) of cases. Dysphagia or dysphonia were more likely in those with significant esophageal injury compared to those without (59.3% vs. 12.6% respectively; OR 10.1; 95% CI 4.43-23.1). Among 27 patients with significant esophageal injury, 48% were found in suicidal patients, compared with 51.9% in non-suicidal patients (p = NS). On multivariate regression, there was no difference in the rate of significant esophageal injury among suicidal vs. non suicidal patients (aOR 1.55; p = 0.45, 95% CI 0.45-5.33). Most ingestions involved basic substances (332/409; 81.2%). Unknown or mixed ingestions accounted for 25 (6.11%) of the ingestions. Significant esophageal burns were found in 6/52 (11.5%) of acid ingestions, compared with 21/332 (6.3%) of basic ingestions. Of the 42 cases of acidic ingestions without dysphagia or odynophagia, 2 (4.8%; 0.58-16.1%) had significant esophageal burns, compared with 9 (3.2%; 95% CI 1.4-5.9%) of the 284 basic ingestions; p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression, patients with acidic ingestions were not more likely to experience a significant burn (aOR 1.7; p = 0.11, 95% CI 0.9-3.1) compared to those with basic ingestions. No patient with significant esophageal burns was asymptomatic.

Conclusion: In this study, there was no statistical differences in the rates of significant burns between acidic and basic caustic ingestions. There were no significant esophageal injuries noted among asymptomatic patients.