多通道腔内阻抗技术在胃食管反流病诊断中的应用

24h食管pH监测有助于诊断胃食管反流病（GERD）,但其只能发现pH〈4的酸反流。多通道腔内阻抗（MII）技术通过记录食管腔内食团通过所引起的阻抗值变化,可在多种食管水平上发现胃食管反流事件而不依赖于反流物的pH值,同步联合pH监测可明确反流物的酸度、反流持续和清除时间、反流到达近端食管的高度等。本文就MII技术及其在GERD诊断中的临床应用作一综述。     

胃食管反流病与哮喘关系初探

目的探讨胃食管反流与哮喘的关系。方法对15例以哮喘为主要表现的GERD患者进行了食管24hpH值监测及胃镜检查,并分析食管pH值与症状的关系,并以22例无呼吸系统症状的GERD患者作为对照。结果以哮喘为主要表现的GERD患者食管24hpH监测的各项指标与无呼吸系统症状的GERD患者存在显著差异(P<0.001,0.05),胃镜结果无显著差异,提示症状与酸反流密切相关。结论以哮喘为主要表现的GERD患者酸反流比普通GERD患者重,并且哮喘为患者的唯一临床表现,而无食管症状,因此临床上极易误诊。     

正常人和胃食管反流病人的昼夜食管pH和动力变化

目的:为探讨正常人和胃食管反流病(gastroesophageal reflux disease,GERD)病人昼夜食管运动规律以及食管运动与酸反流的关系。方法:45例GERD病人和10名正常人均接受食管测压和动态食管pH及压力同步监测。结果:(1)下食管括约肌压、远端食管蠕动压及有效食管蠕动百分比在酸反流DeMeester高计分组明显低于低计分组(P<0.05),在反流性食管炎组也明显低于非反流性食管炎组(P<0.05)。(2)有GERD症状或食管炎的卧位有效蠕动百分比明显低于立位(P<0.05)。反流性食管炎组80％有夜间或伴有夜间反流,而不伴反流性食管炎的GERD无1例出现夜间反流。结论:昼夜食管pH和压力动态监测有利于进一步探讨GERD的运动病理,除LES功能外,食管清除功能在GERD发病中起重要作用。     

24h食管pH监测在胃食管反流病的临床应用（附59例探讨）

目的：本研究应用24h食管pH监测仪,检测食管下段pH值,旨在为胃食管反流病（GERD）提供灵敏性和特异性高、先进而方便快捷的诊断方法。方法：正常对照组20例,消化性溃疡54例及GERD组85例,均采用DigitrapperMKⅢ24h pH监测仪记录下食管括约肌（LES）上5cm处pH。结果：GERD组24h食管pH监测有关指标均分别显著高于正常对照组和消化性溃疡组（P＜0．01）,后两者间比较差别无显著性（P＞0．05）;GERD组中有24例内镜阴性GERD患者,其24h食管pH监测与61例反流性食管炎比较,无显著性差别（P＞0．05）。结论：GERD的临床分析和内镜诊断均有其局限性,结合24h食管pH监测,不失为GERD,尤其是内镜阴性GERD诊断有意义的重要指标。     

24h食管pH-阻抗联合监测评估以慢性咳嗽为表现的GERD患者的反流特征

背景：腔内阻抗技术与24h食管pH监测联用,可检出各种类型的胃食管反流事件,明确反流物的性质及其酸碱性。目的：应用24h食管pH-阻抗联合监测初步探讨以慢性咳嗽为表现的胃食管反流病（GERD）患者的反流特征。方法：连续纳入胸部X线检查无明显异常、无典型胃食管反流症状的不明原因慢性咳嗽患者73例,其中内镜检查无异常发现且DH-阻抗联合监测结果符合GERD诊断者定义为慢性咳嗽GERD组,21例健康志愿者作为正常对照组,比较两组pH-阻抗联合监测结果。结果：单纯根据pH监测结果,17例患者诊断为GERD。根据pH-阻抗联合监测结果,则有26例患者诊断为GERD。慢性咳嗽GERD组以气一液混合反流为主（46.3％）,正常对照组以气体反流为主（68．9％）,两组均以弱酸反流为主（59．9％和59．1％）。两组间DeMeester计分以及气体反流、酸反流、近端反流次数等差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：以慢性咳嗽为表现的GERD患者以气．液混合反流和弱酸反流为主,无论是立位还是卧位时均存在明显的异常反流且近端反流较正常人多见。24h食管DH-阻抗联合监测对疑似GERD的慢性咳嗽患者有重要诊断价值。     

Bravo胶囊的临床应用

与国外报道相仿,胃食管反流病（gastroesophageal refluxdisease,GERD）在我国的发病率日益增高。GERD是由于胃内容物反流而引起烧灼感、反酸、胸痛等症状的疾病,传统的24h食管pH监测被认为是诊断的＂金标准＂。该方法将带有电极的导管经鼻置入食管,     

伴特发性肺纤维化的胃食管反流病患者夜间酸暴露特点

背景:胃食管反流是特发性肺纤维化(IPF)发生的危险因素之一,夜间反流在胃食管反流病(GERD)食管外表现中起重要作用。目的:研究伴IPF的GERD患者夜间食管酸暴露的特点。方法:选取2006年12月～2008年1月北京朝阳医院收治的16例IPF-GERD患者、32例GERD患者和16例健康志愿者(非GERD)。各组患者行24 h食管pH监测,对夜间8 h内(10pm-6am)的酸暴露程度,包括pH4的时间百分比、酸清除时间、反流次数、长反流(5 min)次数、最长反流时间等指标进行分析。结果:14例(87.5%)IPF-GERD患者存在夜间酸暴露,其程度高于非GERD组(P0.05),而与GERD患者无明显差异(P0.05)。IPF-GERD组患者前半夜pH4的时间百分比显著高于后半夜(12.2%±3.9%对1.1%±0.5%,P0.05),GERD组两者无明显差异(10.8%±2.7%对5.1%±1.8%,P0.05)。结论:大部分IPF-GERD患者存在夜间酸暴露,其主要发生于前半夜。     

老年人胃食管反流病食道压力测定和24小时pH监测的临床特点

胃食管反流病(gastro-esophageal reflux disease,GERD)是老年人在临床上常见的消化系统疾病之一,是抗反流机制和对反流物的损害抵御机制减弱的结果,食管下括约肌功能不全、食管黏膜暴露与胃酸反流是造成GERD的主要病因.老年GERD伴发食管炎者随患者年龄的增长而增多,本研究主要探讨老年GERD患者食管下括约肌的功能和胃酸反流的特点.     

食管阻抗-pH监测在胃食管反流病诊断中的作用

阻抗-pH监测是目前监测胃食管反流病(GERD)的新技术,可通过对胃反流物的pH值和阻抗值进行检测,从而了解反流物为酸反流、弱酸反流或非腹反流,并可区分反流物的性状。阻抗-pH监测可应用于GERID的诊断,尤其适用于对弱酸反流或非酸反流的诊断、对难治性GERD的诊断以及非典型症状GERD的诊断。本文主要就阻抗-pH监测的机制和临床应用作一论述。     

24h食管pH监测在胃食管反流病的临床应用

目的　应用 2 4h食管 pH监测仪 ,检测食管下段 pH值 ,旨在为胃食管反流病 (GERD)提供灵敏性和特异性较高、先进而方便、快捷的诊断方法。方法　正常对照组 2 0例 ,消化性溃疡 5 4例及GERD组 85例 ,均采用Digi trapperMKⅢ 2 4hpH监测仪记录下食管括约肌 (LES)上 5cm处 pH。 结果　GERD组 2 4h食管pH监测有关指标均分别显著高于对照组和消化性溃疡组 (P <0 0 1) ,后二者间比较差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 ) ;GERD组中有 2 4例内镜无异常的异常反流患者 ,其 2 4h食管 pH监测与 6 1例反流性食管炎比较 ,无显著性差异 (P >0 0 5 )。结论　GERD的症状分析和内镜诊断均有其局限性 ,2 4h食管 pH监测是GERD诊断的确切标准。     

Diagnostic options for patients with refractory GERD

Patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are those who have persistent symptoms while being treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). One third of GERD patients requiring a daily PPI are estimated to eventually experience treatment failure. These patients are usually referred for further investigation to confirm the presence of GERD or to identify other entities as the cause of symptoms. Tools that can be used in this diagnostic process include upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with analysis of esophageal biopsies, esophageal pH monitoring, impedance-pH monitoring, and esophageal bilirubin monitoring. The conventional diagnostic approach includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and ambulatory pH monitoring while receiving PPI therapy. New diagnostic techniques that may be useful with refractory GERD include impedance-pH monitoring, which is very sensitive in detecting persistent weakly acidic reflux, and bilirubin monitoring, which detects increased esophageal exposure to bile. Gastric pH monitoring should be reserved for patients in whom PPI resistance is suspected.     

胃食管反流病诊断技术的进展

胃食管反流病（GERD）的患病率近年来在我国有上升趋势。目前诊断GERD的手段较多，如典型症状（烧心和反酸）、质子泵抑制剂（PPT）试验和上消化道内镜检查等，尤其是GERD的诊断技术，包括最初的X线钡餐以及食管放射性核素检查和24h食管pH监测，到新近出现的食管多通道腔内阻抗监测和无线pH监测等，为胃食管反流提供了客观的证据。     

Integrated acidity and the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to demonstrate that integrated esophageal and gastric acidity values, calculated from 24-h pH recordings, can provide more precise quantitative temporal data than the conventional pH parameters historically associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) investigations. METHODS: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy results and pH tracings from 20 GERD subjects with > or =10% esophageal acid contact time were studied. Integrated gastric and esophageal acidity were calculated from time-weighted average hydrogen ion concentrations at each second of the 24-h recording period. RESULTS: Integrated esophageal acidity correlated with grade of esophagitis. Two quite distinct GERD subtypes were identified, with either a monophasic or biphasic pattern of integrated esophageal acidity. "Biphasic" subjects differed from "monophasic" subjects in terms of magnitude and pattern of integrated esophageal acidity. Although both groups had significant integrated nocturnal gastric acidity, only the biphasic GERD subjects had concomitant increases in nocturnal integrated esophageal acidity. Esophagitis grade was correlated with magnitude rather than pattern of integrated esophageal acidity, and it was possible to calculate a reflux coefficient that seems to provide an estimate of the quantitative motor disturbance present in GERD. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated esophageal and gastric acidity provide quantitative measures of GERD pathophysiology and, compared to conventional pH parameters, should enhance evaluation of therapeutic interventions.     

Symptom priority ranking in the care of gastroesophageal reflux: a review of 1,850 cases

BACKGROUND: Clinical history remains an important part of the medical evaluation of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia are considered typical symptoms of GERD. Priority rankings of these symptoms can be determined with a standardized questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether symptom priority ranking and symptom severity grading can provide useful information in the evaluation of patients with GERD. METHODS: From 1,850 patients that were analyzed retrospectively, patients with dysphagia unrelated to GERD were excluded. A standardized questionnaire was applied before each patient underwent any esophageal diagnostic study. Priority of symptoms was determined to be primary, secondary, tertiary, or none based on the patient response to the questionnaire. Presence of a stricture was determined either by endoscopy, esophagraphy, or both studies. Stationary esophageal manometry and 24-hour pH monitoring were performed on all patients. Through bivariate and multivariate analysis, the relationships among typical GERD symptoms, esophageal reflux-related stenosis, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and composite score were established. RESULTS: High priority ranking of the symptom dysphagia is predictive of the presence of an esophageal stricture, but has a negative association with abnormal manometric and pH studies. In contrast, high priority ranking of the symptom heartburn and regurgitation are positively associated with abnormal manometric and pH results. CONCLUSIONS: Priority ranking can be a valuable adjunct to objective testing in the evaluation of GERD. In certain clinical situations it can obviate the need for 24-hour pH monitoring.     

Are lifestyle measures effective in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease? An evidence-based approach

Lifestyle modifications are first-line therapy for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We applied an evidence-based approach to determine the efficacy of lifestyle measures for GERD management. We used PubMed and Ovid to perform a search of the literature published between 1975 and 2004 using the key words heartburn, GERD, smoking, alcohol, obesity, weight loss, caffeine or coffee, citrus, chocolate, spicy food, head of bed elevation, and late-evening meal. Each study was reviewed by 2 reviewers who assigned one of the following ratings: evidence A, randomized clinical trials; evidence B, cohort or case-control studies; evidence C, case reports or flawed clinical trials; evidence D, investigator experience; or evidence E, insufficient information. We screened 2039 studies and identified 100 that were relevant. Only 16 clinical trials examined the impact on GERD (by change in symptoms, esophageal pH variables, or lower esophageal sphincter pressure) of the lifestyle measure. Although there was physiologic evidence that exposure to tobacco, alcohol, chocolate, and high-fat meals decreases lower esophageal sphincter pressure, there was no published evidence of the efficacy of dietary measures. Neither tobacco nor alcohol cessation was associated with improvement in esophageal pH profiles or symptoms (evidence B). Head of bed elevation and left lateral decubitus position improved the overall time that the esophageal pH was less than 4.0 (evidence B). Weight loss improved pH profiles and symptoms (evidence B). Weight loss and head of bed elevation are effective lifestyle interventions for GERD. There is no evidence supporting an improvement in GERD measures after cessation of tobacco, alcohol, or other dietary interventions.     

High prevalence of proximal and distal gastroesophageal reflux disease in advanced COPD

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in a variety of chronic respiratory diseases, but little is known about GERD in the setting of COPD. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence, presentation, and predictors of GERD based on proximal and distal esophageal pH monitoring in patients with severe COPD. METHODS: Forty-one COPD patients with a mean FEV1 of 24% of predicted underwent dual-probe 24-h esophageal pH monitoring, and 1 patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy. RESULTS: The prevalence of GERD was 57%. Elevated distal and proximal reflux were present in 41% and 46% of patients undergoing esophageal pH studies, respectively. Fifteen percent of these patients had abnormal proximal reflux despite having normal distal probe results. Most patients with GERD were not receiving acid blockers at the time of their referral, and only one third reported heartburn and/or acid regurgitation during the pH study. Only higher body mass index was predictive of reflux on regression analysis (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 1.5; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GERD is common in advanced COPD. Patients are often asymptomatic and have a relatively high prevalence of isolated abnormal proximal reflux. Dual-probe monitoring is therefore well suited for detecting GERD in patients with advanced COPD.     

The relationship between ineffective esophageal motility and gastro-esophageal reflux disease]

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a distinct manometric entity characterized by a hypocontractile esophagus. Recently, IEM replaced the nonspecific esophageal motility disorder (NEMD), and its associations with gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and respiratory symptoms are well known. We evaluated the relationship of IEM with GERD, and the diagnostic value of IEM for GERD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed recent 3-year (Jan. 1998-Sep. 2002) datas of esophageal manometry, acid perfusion test and simultaneous 24 hr-ambulatory pH-metry with manometry studies in 270 consecutive patients with esophageal and/or GERD symptoms. The prevalence of IEM in GERD group and non-GERD group, and the variables of pH-metry and manometry among esophageal motility disorders were compared. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value of IEM, esophageal symptom, and acid perfusion test for GERD were calculated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in IEM prevalence rate between GERD group and non-GERD group. In addition, there was no significant difference in GERD prevalence rate and esophageal acid clearance in variety of motility disorder groups. Total percent time of pH <4 in IEM group did not show any difference when compared with other groups except in the achalasia group. In regard of diagnostic value to detect GERD, all positive results showed high specificity (97%) in IEM with esophageal symptom and positive acid perfusion test. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of IEM using esophageal manometry in patients with various esophageal symptoms does not strongly suggest on association with GERD. However, IEM with concomitant esophageal symptoms and positive acid perfusion test has diagnostic values for GERD.     

Laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been extensively studied in patients with laryngeal signs and symptoms, gastroesophageal reflux being identified in approximately 50%. Few studies have investigated the incidence and significance of LPR in GERD patients. Two-hundred and seventy-six consecutive patients referred with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux had dual probe 24 h pH, esophageal manometry, GERD and ENT questionnaires. LPR was defined as at least three pharyngeal reflux events less than pH 5.0 with corresponding esophageal reflux, but excluding meal periods. Fourty-two percent of patients were positive for LPR on 24 h pH monitoring and 91.3% corresponded with an abnormal esophageal acid score. Distal esophageal acid exposure was significantly greater (P < 0.001) in patients with LPR but symptoms of GERD and regurgitation scores showed no significant differences between patients with positive and negative LPR on 24 h pH. There was no significant difference between the incidence of LPR in patients with or without laryngeal symptoms. There is a high incidence of LPR in patients with GERD but its significance for laryngeal symptoms is tenuous. Fixed distance dual probe pH monitoring allows documentation of conventional esophageal reflux and LPR.     

The role of esophageal pH monitoring in symptomatic patients on PPI therapy

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory pH monitoring while on therapy is often recommended in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients with continued symptoms. However, to date, little data exist to justify this indication. AIM: To assess the role of pH monitoring in symptomatic patients despite aggressive therapy with typical or extra esophageal GERD. METHODS: Retrospective review of 2,291 ambulatory pH tracings (1999-2003) identified subgroup of studies performed on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Patients with prior fundoplication or Barrett's esophagus were excluded. Patients grouped on predominant presenting GERD symptoms: typical (heartburn and regurgitation) or extra esophageal (chest pain, cough, hoarseness, sore throat, shortness of breath, asthma). The distribution of abnormal pH parameters in each group calculated and univariate analyses assessed the probability of abnormal pH in each group. Abnormal cutoff values traditionally used in clinical practice and more stringent cutoff values used to determine distribution of abnormality as a function of cutoff values. RESULTS: A total of 250 patients (mean age 54.3 yrs, 59% female) underwent pH monitoring on either daily (b.i.d.) or twice daily (q.d.) on PPI therapy: 115 (46%) with extra esophageal and 135 (54%) with typical GERD symptoms. Extra esophageal GERD patients were more likely to undergo pH monitoring on b.i.d. PPIs (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.6-4.4; p < 0.01). 52 (93%) of typical and 74 (99%) of extra esophageal GERD patients on b.i.d. PPIs tested normal. The odds of a normal pH values were 11 times higher for patients on b.i.d. PPIs (OR = 11.4; 95% CI = 4.3-30.1, p < 0.01) than those on q.d. PPIs. CONCLUSIONS: 1) The likelihood of an abnormal esophageal pH for symptomatic GERD patients on b.i.d. PPI is very small. 2) In this group of patients failing b.i.d. PPIs causes other than GERD should be sought.     

Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux diseases in Chinese--role of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and esophageal motor dysfunction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) is the major mechanism for gastroesophageal reflux in the Western population. The major reflux mechanism in Chinese patients with GERD has not been studied before. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with GERD and 28 controls underwent stationary baseline manometry and the 24-h ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring. TLESRs were measured before and after an 850 kcal meal in the supine position. Primary peristalsis, secondary peristalsis, and esophageal acid clearance were measured by esophageal manometry. RESULTS: Total time esophageal pH 相似文献