Eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus: gastroesophageal reflux versus @entity5202 in XXXX --discussion on daily practice.

@entity1 @entity1712 @entity5202 @entity1208 @entity354
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: @entity1 presenting with persistent symptoms attributed to @entity354 ( @entity354 ) that are unresponsive to both medical and surgical therapies are commonly submitted to esophageal biopsies, the results of which show an abnormal presence of eosinophils. In this setting, @entity5202 may be the correct diagnosis. The purpose of this report is to clarify the importance of esophageal @entity1712 , regardless of whether associated with acid reflux, ie, as an independent symptomatic entity, when treating a @entity1 with refractory @entity354 . METHODS: Two @entity1 , aged 8 and 7 years, had the classic symptoms of @entity354 . They were treated with antacid without improvement of the @entity1208 . Subsequent esophageal biopsy results showed marked @entity1712 . From this moment on, @entity5202 started to be considered the main diagnosis. RESULTS: Although @entity1712 caused by @entity354 is very frequently found in esophageal biopsy, in case of refractory drug treatment and microscopic findings of a great number of eosinophils and mast cells, @entity5202 must be considered. This disease is better treated with corticoids instead of antacid drugs. It explains the reason some @entity1 do not respond to antacid and surgical treatment and remain symptomatic with @entity1208 . CONCLUSIONS: In refractory cases of @entity354 , @entity5202 must be considered before any surgical measure.
