Low Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Outpatients with Dyspepsia

Table 2

Endoscopic findings in outpatients with dyspepsia, stratified by alarm features; Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, June 1, 2011–July 1, 2015.

Characteristic	All patients		No alarm features		Any alarm feature		value
	(650)	%	(223)	34.3%	(427)	65.7%
Any endoscopic abnormality	321	49.4	113	50.7	208	48.7	0.63
Significant endoscopic abnormality	66	10.2	12	5.4	54	12.6	0.004
Any peptic ulcer disease	26	4	3	1.3	23	5.4	0.01
Gastric	17	2.6	3	1.3	14	3.3	0.14
Duodenal	11	1.7	0	0	11	2.6	0.02
Gastritis
Erosive	43	6.6	15	6.7	28	6.6	0.93
Nonerosive	193	29.7	74	33.2	119	27.9	0.16
Duodenitis
Erosive	5	0.8	1	0.4	4	0.9	0.5
Nonerosive	47	7.2	14	6.3	33	7.7	0.54
Malignancy	5	0.8	0	0	5	1.2	0.1
Esophagitis
Los Angeles class A	35	5.4	11	4.9	24	5.6	0.71
Los Angeles classes B, C, and D	16	2.5	5	2.2	11	2.6	0.79
Other significant endoscopic findings	25	3.8	5	2.2	20	4.7	0.12
Anastomotic stricture	4		0		4
Candida esophagitis	4		0		4
Anastomotic ulcer	3		0		3
Severe hemorrhagic gastritis	3		2		1
Barrett’s esophagus	3		1		2
Esophageal benign stricture	2		0		2
Esophageal varices	2		1		1
Extrinsic compression	1		0		1
Gastric bezoar	1		0		1
Paraesophageal hernia	1		1		0
Fobi-ring erosion	1		0		1
Other nonsignificant endoscopic findings	37	6	15	6.7	22	5.2	0.41
Benign polyps	31		12		19
Nonobstructive Schatzki’s ring	6		3		3

LA: Los Angeles.