MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study involved archival search of patients with GI biopsies that showed eosinophilic infiltration from January 2004 to December 2012. Patients' clinical data from computerised hospital records and clinical notes was reviewed. Diagnostic criteria for EG included presence of GI symptoms with more than 30 eosinophils/high power field on GI biopsies. Patients with secondary causes for eosinophilia were excluded.
RESULTS: Eighteen patients with EG were identified (mean age 52 years; male/female: 11/7). Fifteen patients (83%) had peripheral blood eosinophilia. Seven patients (39%) had atopic conditions. Most common symptoms were diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Small intestine was the most common site involved. Endoscopic finding was non-specific. Ten patients were treated with corticosteroids (nine prednisolone, one budesonide): eight patients (89%) responded clinically to prednisolone but four patients (50%) relapsed following tapering-off of prednisolone and required maintenance dose. One patient each responded to diet elimination and montelukast respectively. Half of the remaining six patients who were treated with proton-pump inhibitors, antispasmodic or antidiarrheal agents still remained symptomatic.
CONCLUSION: Prednisolone is an effective treatment though relapses are common. Small intestine is most commonly involved. EG should be considered in the evaluation of unexplained chronic recurrent GI symptoms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five participants underwent MRE as an initial investigation or follow-up for inflammatory bowel disease. A systematic sampling method was used to divide the participants into three different groups: group 1 received 6.7% mannitol concentration, group 2 received 3.3% mannitol concentration and group 3 received pineapple juice as an oral contrast agent during their MRE examination. The degree of bowel distension on MRE images was assessed by a radiologist by measuring the bowel diameter from inner wall to inner wall at specified levels, while qualitative analysis was evaluated based on the presence of artefacts. All patients were asked to score their acceptance of the oral contrast and were asked about side effects such as diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort and vomiting.
RESULTS: All patients were able to completely ingest 1.5L of oral contrast. The mean diameter of bowel distension was 2.1cm in patients who received 6.7% mannitol concentration, 2.0cm in patients who received 3.3% mannitol concentration and 1.6 cm in patients who received pineapple juice. Twothirds of patients who received 6.7% mannitol and 3.3% mannitol solutions had good-quality MRE images, but 68% of patients who received pineapple juice had poor-quality MRE images. Twenty-four patients (96%) who received pineapple juice rated it as slightly acceptable and acceptable but only 12 patients (48%) who received 6.7% mannitol solution rated it as slightly acceptable and acceptable. Eighty-eight percent of patients who received 6.7% mannitol solution experienced at least one form of side effect as compared to 44% of patients who received 3.3% mannitol solution and 18% of patients who received pineapple juice.
CONCLUSION: Optimum small bowel distension and good image quality can be achieved using 3.3% mannitol concentration as an oral contrast agent. Increase in mannitol concentration does not result in significant improvement of small bowel distension or image quality but is instead related to poorer patient acceptance and increased side effects. Pineapple juice is more palatable than mannitol and produces satisfactory small bowel distension. However, the small bowel distension is less uniform when using pineapple juice with a considerable presence of artefacts. Mannitol, 3.3% concentration, is therefore recommended as an endoluminal contrast agent for bowel in MRE.