AccScience Publishing / JCTR / Volume 8 / Issue 3 / DOI: 10.18053/jctres.08.202203.008
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The misclassification of gastric antral vascular ectasia 

Mahmoud Aryan1 * Ravi Jariwala1,2 Basem Alkurdi3 Shajan Peter3 Mohamed Shoreibah3
Show Less
1 Department of Medicine, Tinsley Harrison Internal Medicine Residency, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
2 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
3 Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Received: 23 January 2022 | Revised: 29 April 2022 | Accepted: 1 May 2022 | Published online: 25 May 2022
© 2022 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Background: Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is characterized by angiodysplastic lesions and is a rare form of gastrointestinal bleeding. Given the multiple patterns, GAVE can be misclassified

Aim: We analyzed the misclassification of GAVE amongst patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 941 EGDs between 2017-2019. Inclusion criteria included findings of GAVE on EGD ± biopsy. Correct classification was based on visual EGD findings. Outcome variables included misclassification rate, endoscopist’s background, and concordance between EGD and pathology. Cohen’s Kappa test was used for concordance analysis.

Results: A total of 110 patients had EGD findings of GAVE with a corresponding 184 EGDs. The misclassification rate amongst EGDs was 74/184 (40%). Furthermore, 81/110 patients were correctly classified with their first workup, whereas 29/110 patients needed repeat testing. In cases of misclassification, GAVE was mostly referred to as erythema (43%), with ulceration, gastritis, or polyps. Sixty-six (60%) patients had biopsies with a concordance of 76% between EGD and biopsy (κ=0.35)

Conclusions: Our findings indicate GAVE was misclasssified up to 40% on EGDs with hepatologists and gastroenterologists having similar misclassification rates. Proper identification is crucial given susceptibility to upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Relevance for patients: This study emphasizes the importance of accurate classification of GAVE to ensure proper treatment of these lesions which can improve clinical outcomes.

Keywords
biopsy
endoscopy
gastric antral vascular ectasia
misdiagnosis
watermelon stomach
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.
References

[1] Dulai GS. Endoscopic Treatment Outcomes in Watermelon Stomach Patients with and without Portal Hypertension. Endoscopy 2004;36:68-72.

[2] Smith E, Davis J, Caldwell S. Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia Pathogenesis and the Link to the Metabolic Syndrome. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2018;20:1-7.

[3] Jabbari M, Cherry R, Lough JO, Daly DS, Kinnear DG, Goresky CA. Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: The Watermelon Stomach. Gastroenterology 1984;87:1165-70.

[4] Kichloo A, Solanki D, Singh J, Dahiya DS, Lal D, Haq KF, et al. Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: Trends of Hospitalizations, Biodemographic Characteristics, and Outcomes with Watermelon Stomach. Gastroenterol Res 2021;14:104.

[5] Chawla SK, Ramani K, lo Presti P. The Honeycomb Stomach: Coalesced Gastric Angiodysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 1990;36:516-8.

[6] Tyagi P, Puri AS, Sharma BC, Sachdeva S, Saran RK, Bhatia V. Nodules in Antrum after Variceal Eradication a New Finding in Patients with Portal Hypertension. Indian J Gastroenterol 2012;31:75-8.

[7] Marsteller WF, Lewin DN, Reuben A. The Biopsy GAVE the Diagnosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:e75-6.

[8] Thomas A, Koch D, Marsteller W, Lewin D, Reuben A. An Analysis of the Clinical, Laboratory, and Histological Features of Striped, Punctate, and Nodular Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia. Dig Dis Sci 2018;63:966-73.

[9] Fuccio L. Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013;5:6.

[10] Mandrekar JN. Measures of Interrater Agreement. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:6-7.

[11] Patwardhan VR, Cardenas A. The Management of Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy and Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia in Cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014;40:354-62.

[12] Gouldesbrough DR, Pell AC. Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: A Problem of Recognition and Diagnosis. Gut 1991;32:954-5.

[13] Gilliam JH, Geisinger KR, Wu WC, Weidner N, RichterJE. Endoscopic Biopsy is Diagnostic in Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia. Dig Dis Sci 1989;34:885-8.

[14] Payen JL, Calès P, Voigt JJ, Barbe S, Pilette C, Dubuisson L, et al. Severe Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy and AntralVascular Ectasia are Distinct Entities in Patients with Cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 1995;108:866-72.

[15] Sebastian S, O’Morain CA, Buckley MJ. Current Therapeutic Options for Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;18:157-65.

[16] Ramai D, Linn S, Reddy M. Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia and Portal Hypertensive Gastropathy. In: Stomach Disorders. India: InTechOpen; 2018. p. 43.

[17] Alkhormi AM, Memon MY, Alqarawi A. Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: A Case Report and Literature Review. J Transl Intern Med 2018;6:47-51.

[18] Vesoulis Z, Naik N, Maseelall P. Histopathologic Changes Are Not Specific for Diagnosis of Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia (GAVE) Syndrome: A Review of the Pathogenesis and a Comparative Image Analysis Morphometric Study of GAVE Syndrome and Gastric Hyperplastic Polyps. Am J Clin Pathol 1998;109:558-64.

[19] Lee SH, Park YK, Cho SM, Kang JK, Lee DJ. Technical Skills and Training of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy for New Beginners. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:759-85.

Share
Back to top
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, Electronic ISSN: 2424-810X Print ISSN: 2382-6533, Published by AccScience Publishing