Search

According to the WHO, 16-18 million people in Central and South America are infected by Trypanosoma cruzi. Chagasic achalasia affects between 7.1% and 10.6% of the population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Botox injections in the clinical response and esophageal function of patients with dysphagia due to chagasic achalasia. In total, 24 symptomatic patients with chagasic achalasia were randomly chosen to receive Botulinum Toxin (BT) or saline injected by endoscopy in the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). Patients were monitored with a clinical score of dysphagia and an objective assessment (esophagograms, scintillography, manometry, and nutritional assessment) for a period of 6 months. Clinical improvement of dysphagia was statistically significant (P < 0.001) in patients receiving BT when compared with the placebo. There was no significant difference in the placebo group regarding clinical score, LES basal pressure and esophageal emptying time. Esophageal emptying time in the toxin group was significantly lower than in the placebo (P=0.04) after 90 days. There were non-significant increases in esophageal emptying of 25.36% and 17.39%, respectively, at 90 and 180 days, in the BT group (P=0.266). Gender, age, and baseline LES pressure did not influence the response to BT. Our data strongly suggests that intrasphincteric injection of BT in LES is clinically effective in the treatment of chagasic achalasia.

Background/aims: In a prospective and randomized clinical study, the operative method and dilatation in the initial stage of megaesophagus were evaluated., Methodology: Forty patients in the initial stage of megaesophagus, managed by forced hydrostatic dilatation of the cardia (20 patients-DILAT Group) or by esophagocardiomyotomy associated with esophagofundopexy (20 patients-Group OP) were followed-up for three years, in terms of clinical, radiographic, endoscopic, manometric and pH monitoring., Results: 1) Both procedures can be performed without significant morbidity or mortality. 2) The two procedures are similar regarding ongoing suppression of dysphagia. 3) Radiologically, the methods are equivalent, since they promote significant elimination of contrast stasis and maintenance of the esophageal diameter. 4) Endoscopic follow-up did not differentiate the procedures in terms of the development of reflux esophagitis, with a rate of only 5% for each group of patients. 5) Manometry demonstrated that surgery produced a significantly greater reduction of the LESP as compared to dilatation, although the latter also determined a marked drop in the maximum basal pressure of the LES. 6) Neither procedure altered the length of the LES. 7) With prolonged esophageal pH monitoring, dilatation demonstrated a greater propensity for reflux as compared to surgery., Conclusion: Both methods offer benefits in the treatment of the initial stage of megaesophagus, although esophageal pH monitoring indicates that dilatation provokes a greater index of esophageal acid exposition time.

In 12 patients with moderate chagasic megaesophagus the lower esophageal sphincter pressure was studied under basal conditions and after i. v. infusion of pentagastrin by open tips infused rapid pull through manometry. Pentagastrin was infused in graded doses of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 micrograms/kg/h. Results were compared with those of 12 healthy controls. Mean basal pressure in the megaesophagus group was significantly higher (p less than 0.05) than in the control group (36.2 +/- 2.5 and 27.4 +/- 1.8 cmH2O, respectively). Following pentagastrin infusion all the values of the lower esophageal sphincter pressure were significantly higher in the chagasic group (p less than 0.05). The plateau was achieved with 0.5 micrograms/kg/h in the control group and with 1.0 micrograms/kg/h in the chagasic group (p less than 0.05). Furthermore, the patients with megaesophagus needed a higher dose of pentagastrin to achieve the maximal contraction.

The jejunal flora of 15 patients with megaoesophagus secondary to Chagas disease was studied and compared with that of 15 control individuals. In addition to the serological reactions for Chagas disease (immunofluorescence and complement fixation reaction), all subjects were submitted to endoscopy and X-ray of the oesophagus, gastric secretory study and investigation of the jejunal flora. The mean bacterial counts (log10) of Chagas disease patients (4.14 +/- 2.15 c.f.u./ml) was significantly higher than those of the control group (2.83 +/- 1.34 c.f.u./ml). Aerobic bacteria were isolated from 14 Chagasic patients (maximum count 10(10) c.f.u./ml) and 7 controls (maximum count 10(5) c.f.u./ml). Anaerobes were isolated from 7 patients (maximum count 10(7) c.f.u./ml) and 1 control (10 c.f.u./ml). Controls and Chagas disease patients differed significantly in the maximum acid output, but there was no statistically significant relation between bacterial counts and maximum output.