食管体部动力异常在胃食管反流病中的作用

背景:食管酸暴露增加在胃食管反流病(GERD)的发病中起重要作用。食管体部蠕动不完全或缺乏可造成食管清除功能障碍。目的:评估食管体部动力异常,包括非特异性食管动力紊乱(NEMD)和无效食管收缩(IEM)在GERD患者中的发生率,以及NEMD和IEM与胃食管酸反流和内镜下食管炎的关系,以探讨它们在GERD中的作用。方法:对116例GERD患者行标准食管测压和24h食管pH监测,其中75例患者行内镜检查。结果:98例(84.5%)GERD患者存在食管体部动力异常,其中77例为NEMD,NEMD中8例符合IEM的诊断标准。合并NEMD或IEM的GERD患者的pH<4总时间百分比显著高于食管动力正常患者(8.0%±9.3%和15.7%±13.5%对3.0%±4.7%,P<0.05);立位和卧位pH<4时间百分比亦显著高于食管动力正常患者(立位:8.8%±11.1%和17.4%±21.0%对3.6%±4.1%,P<0.01;卧位:7.0%±10.4%和16.1%±12.2%对2.3%±6.7%,P<0.05)。合并IEM的GERD患者总食管酸清除(EAC)时间和立位EAC时间较食管动力正常患者显著延长(总EAC时间:1.89min/反流±1.82min/反流对0.66min/反流±0.58min/反流,P<0.05;立位EAC时间:1.96min/反流±1.96min/反流对0.59min/反流±0.48min/反流,P<0.05)。75例行内镜检查的GERD患者中,合并NEMD和IEM的患者与食管动力正常患者的内镜下食管炎发生率无显著差异     

无效食管动力对伴呼吸道症状胃食管反流病发病机制及临床意义的研究

目的 观察伴有呼吸道症状的胃食管反流病(GERD)患者食管动力异常的类型及发生率,探讨无效食管动力(IEM)在其发病机制中的作用及临床意义.方法 应用多功能胃肠动力仪对首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院2005年1月至2007年1月收治的34例伴有哮喘、慢性咳嗽和咽喉部不适等呼吸道症状的GERD患者进行食管压力测定及24h食管动态pH监测,测定下食管括约肌(LES)压力、食管体部蠕动波幅、蠕动时限及蠕动速度,计算pH＜4的时间百分比,卧位及立位pH＜4的时间百分比,平均食管酸清除时间(pH＜4的时间/酸反流次数),算出DeMeester评分.结果 伴有呼吸道症状GERD组LES压力及食管近端、远端蠕动波幅与典型反流症状GERD组及正常对照组比差异无统计学意义;伴有呼吸道症状CERD组的食管动力异常类型主要表现为IEM,IEM发生率为41.2%,明显高于典型反流症状GERD组(18.5%)及正常对照组(0);在伴有呼吸道症状GERD患者中,存在IEM组患者食管pH＜4的总时间百分比及立、卧位食管pH＜4的时间百分比均明显高于食管动力正常组;IEM组患者卧位食管酸清除时间(pH＜4的时间/酸反流次数)较食管动力正常组明显延长.结论 在伴有呼吸道症状GERD患者中,IEM是其最常见的动力异常类型;IEM与食管内酸暴露总时间及立、卧位时间,卧位食管酸清除时间均密切相关,因此,IEM在伴有呼吸道症状GERD患者的发病机制中起重要作用.     

胃食管反流病食管酸暴露和食管动力学变化特征

目的探讨无效食管动力(IEM)在胃食管反流病(GERD)中的作用,以及体质量对食管酸暴露及食管动力的影响。方法77例GERD典型症状患者全部行食管高分辨率压力测定(HRM)和24 h食管动态pH监测,分析IEM及正常食管动力患者酸暴露情况。结果 77例典型GERD症状患者中病理性酸暴露者38例(49%),在病理性酸暴露组中IEM 9例(24%),正常酸暴露组中IEM 5例(13%)。IEM组LES压力低于食管动力正常组(15.15±3.60 vs 22.15±6.73,P0.01);IEM组总pH4时间(百分比)较正常食管动力组高[(14.78±3.8)%vs(4.30±2.68)%,P0.01];IEM组患者BMI值较高。结论 IEM在GERD中较常见,其食管动力障碍中绝大多数为IEM,IEM与食管远端酸暴露密切相关。     

无效食管运动与胃食管反流病关系的探讨

目的 探讨无效食管运动(IEM)与胃食管反流病(GERD)的关系.方法 对90例GERD全部进行胃镜检查并做食管压力测定和24h食管动态pH监测,其中反流性食管炎(RE)组62例,非糜烂性反流病(NERD)组28例.研究IEM与食管酸暴露及RE的关系.结果 RE组中确诊IEM 30例(48.4％)明显高于NERD组6例(21.4％)(P＜0.05).36例IEM患者33例(91.7％)食管酸暴露阳性,高于食管动力正常患者( 28/49,57.2％)(P＜0.01);远端食管pH ＜4总反流时间、卧位反流时间百分比、＞5 min长反流周期数、最长反流时间、DeMeester评分IEM者明显高于食管动力正常者(P＜0.01),反流周期数前者明显高于后者(P＜0.05).结论 IEM在GERD中较常见,其食管动力障碍中绝大多数为IEM,IEM与食管远端酸暴露及RE密切相关.     

无效食管动力在胃食管反流病中的作用

胃食管反流病(GERD)是临床上常见的胃肠动力障碍性疾病,食管黏膜的酸暴露是反流性食管炎的主要原因,而食管的酸清除能力在食管黏膜损伤中起着重要作用.近年人们将食管远端大于30%的湿咽蠕动波为低幅蠕动[波幅<30 mm Hg(1 kPa=7.5 mm Hg )]或为非传导性收缩定义为无效食管动力(IEM)[1],并将IEM作为一明确的动力异常提出[2,3].对酸清除与食管动力异常的关系研究较多[4],但目前尚无GERD患者伴IEM发生率及IEM在GERD发生中作用的研究.本研究是为明确IEM在GERD中的发生率及IEM在胃食管酸反流及酸清除、食管黏膜损伤中的作用.     

无效食管动力在胃食管反流病中作用的探讨

目的探讨无效食管动力(IEM)在胃食管反流病(GERD)发病中的作用。方法选取2014年7月至2016年2月在上海同济大学附属东方医院就诊的GERD患者,所有患者均接受高分辨率(HRM)食管测压和24h动态pH监测,排除食管-胃连接处(EGJ)压力和(或)形态异常的情况,共纳入49例GERD患者。根据HRM测压下食管远端收缩积分(DCI)将GERD患者分为IEM组、异常动力组和正常动力组。比较各组间食管动力及反流情况。结果 49例GERD患者中,IEM组19例,异常动力组15例,正常动力组15例。IEM组中反流性食管炎所占比例显著高于异常动力组和正常动力组(P0.05),正常动力组与异常动力组相比较差异无统计学意义。IEM组平均吞咽DCI显著低于异常动力组及正常动力组(P0.01),异常动力组显著低于正常动力组(P0.01)。IEM组食管体部蠕动中断长度相较于异常动力组及正常动力组显著延长(P0.01),异常动力组较正常动力组显著延长(P0.01)。各组间酸反流次数、弱酸反流次数、非酸反流次数和总反流次数比较差异无统计学意义。IEM组DeMeester得分及合计酸反流时间较异常动力组及正常动力组显著增加,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),异常动力组及正常动力组DeMeester得分及合计酸反流时间比较差异无统计学意义。49例GERD患者中,平均吞咽DCI与食管蠕动中断长度呈负相关(P0.01),平均吞咽DCI与合计酸反流时间呈负相关(P0.01)。结论 GERD患者中食管动力障碍与酸反流相关,食管体部收缩力度减弱,蠕动中断延长,与酸反流严重程度相关。IEM患者食管收缩力度较弱,酸反流时间较长,更易导致食管炎发生。     

胃食管反流病与特发性肺间质纤维化的关系

目的 明确特发性肺间质纤维化(IPIF)患者胃食管反流病(GERD)的患病率,探讨GERD与IPIF的关系.方法 对2006年12月至2008年1月在首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院呼吸科住院确诊的24例IPIF患者进行24 h食管pH监测和食管测压,同期住院的23例非IPIF的弥漫性实质性肺疾病患者作为对照.比较两组患者GERD症状、病理性食管酸暴露及无效食管动力(IEM)的发生率.结果 (1)66.7%(16/24)的IPIF患者存在病理性食管酸暴露,明显高于对照组的26.10k(6/23),P<0.05;(2)在具有病理性酸暴露的IPIF(GERD-IPIF)患者中,87.5%(14/16)存在夜间酸暴露事件;(3)典型GERD症状在GERD-IPIF患者中的发生率只有37.5%(6/16);(4)IPIF组和非IPIF组患者IEM发生率相似,分别为42.9%(9/21)和39.1%(9/23),P>0.05.结论 在IPIF患者中GERD患病率较高,但多数患者没有典型GERD症状,IPIF患者应该进行24 h食管pH监测筛查GERD.     

无效食管动力临床特征分析

目的 分析无效食管动力(IEM)的临床特征。方法 选择2021年7月至2022年7月因胃食管反流病(GERD)样症状或吞咽梗阻于四川大学华西医院行高分辨率食管测压及食管24 h pH监测的患者338例。根据IEM发生情况将其分为正常食管动力组(n=264)和IEM组(n=74)。比较两组人口学特征、食管测压数据、酸暴露时间百分比(AET)、临床症状及对质子泵抑制剂治疗的反应情况。结果 IEM组男性人数比例大于正常食管动力组,胃食管结合部(EGJ)基础压低于正常食管动力组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组年龄、体质量指数、EGJ分型比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组反酸/烧心、胸痛、咽喉不适、吞咽梗阻、非特异症状发生情况比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。IEM组总AET>4.0%、立位AET>6.0%及卧位AET>2.0%人数比例均高于正常食管动力组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组抑酸治疗有效率差异无统计学意义(52.08%vs 47.37%;χ²=0.341,P=0.559)。多因素logisti...     

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。     

下食管括约肌运动和功能与胃食管反流病

目的　观察胃食管反流病 (GERD)患者与对照组餐前、餐后食管pH情况 ,下食管括约肌(LES )运动模式的变化以及酸反流事件与一过性下食管括约肌松弛 (TLESR )、低LES压力 (LESP)的关系。方法　两组受试者均接受连续性 4h食管压力测定 (分别为空腹和餐后 1、2、3h)和食管pH监测 (GERD组检测 4h ,对照组检测 2 4h)。结果　GERD组酸反流事件明显高于对照组 (P <0 0 5 )。两组间TLESR发生率差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 ) ,但与空腹比较 ,两组餐后 1h和 2hTLESR发生率明显增多 ;GERD组伴有酸反流的TLESR明显高于对照组 (P <0 0 0 1)。 4 3% (2 9/ 6 8)的酸反流事件发生在TLESR期间。 31% (2 1/ 6 8)的酸反流事件出现于低LESP状态中。结论　GERD是多因素参与的病理过程。LES运动形式变化和功能不全是GERD的重要背景因素。     

Ineffective Esophageal Motility Is a Primary Motility Disorder in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

The relationship between esophageal motor abnormalities and GERD has been widely studied. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) in patients with GERD. In addition, we also evaluated esophageal acid exposure, acid clearance, and endoscopic esophagitis in GERD patients with IEM. Of 89 patients enrolled in this study, 47 (52.8%) were found to have nonspecific esophageal motility disorder (NEMD). Forty-four of the 47 (93.6%) patients with NEMD met the diagnostic criteria for IEM. The overall incidence of IEM in GERD patients was 49.4%. Patients with IEM had significant increases in upright and recumbent mean fraction of time pH < 4 (6.70% and 4.38%) and mean recumbent esophageal acid clearance (12.45 min/reflux) when compared to those with other motility findings. Seventeen of the 44 (39%) IEM patients did not have endoscopic esophagitis. On the other hand, 26 of the 39 (67%) patients with normal manometry had endoscopic esophagitis. We concluded that not only is the prevalence of IEM high in GERD, but also that IEM patients have more recumbent gastroesophageal reflux and delayed acid clearance. Combined with endoscopic findings, we propose that IEM can be viewed as a specific entity of primary esophageal motility disorder in patients with GERD.     

Abnormal acid reflux in asthmatic patients in a region with low GERD prevalence

Background A high prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in asthmatic patients has been reported from North America and Europe. However, only a few data from Asia are available. This study evaluated the incidence of abnormal gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in asthmatic patients in Taiwan.Methods Fifty-six consecutive ambulatory patients with clinically stable asthma (41 men and 15 women; age, 57.7 ± 12.4 years; range, 24 to 74 years) were evaluated prospectively. All patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-h esophageal pH monitoring.Results Twenty-nine patients (51.8%) had abnormal GER, as defined by 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. There were 42 patients without endoscopic evidence of esophagitis, 10 patients with Los Angeles (LA) grade A esophagitis, and 4 patients with LA grade B esophagitis. The esophageal motility function studies revealed 21 patients with normal esophageal motility, 23 patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and 12 patients with nonspecific esophageal motility disorders other than IEM. Although the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure was higher in the patients without GER, the difference was not statistically significant.Conclusions Abnormal GER seems to be a clinically significant problem in asthmatic patients in Taiwan. The most common esophageal motility dysfunction is IEM. However, the status of Helicobacter pylori infection plays no role in abnormal GER.     

Is ineffective esophageal motility gastropharyngeal reflux disease？

AIM： TO evaluate the association between IEM and gastropharyngeal reflux disease （GPRD） in patients who underwent ambulatory 24-h dual-probe pH monitoring for the evaluation of supraesophageal symptoms.
METHODS： A total of 632 patients who underwent endoscopy, esophageal manometry and ambulatory 24-h dual-pH monitoring due to supraesophageal symptoms （e.g. globus, hoarseness, or cough） were enrolled. Of them, we selected the patients who had normal esophageal motility and IEM. The endoscopy and ambulatory pH monitoring findings were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS;： A total of 264 patients with normal esophageal motility and 195 patients with the diagnosis of IEM were included in this study. There was no difference in the frequency of reflux esophagitis and hiatal hernia between the two groups. All the variables showing gastroesophageal reflux and gastropharyngeal reflux were not different between the two groups. The frequency of GERD and GPRD, as defined by ambulatory pH monitoring, was not different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION： There was no association between IEM and GPRD as well as between IEM and GERD. IEM alone cannot be considered as a definitive marker for reflux disease.     

Relevance of ineffective esophageal motility and hyperactive acid sensitization in patients with gastroesophageal reflux

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal motor abnormalities including ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and visceral hypersensitivity have been frequently observed in patients with gastroesophageal reflux. The aim of this study was to observe the incidences of hypersensitivity to acid infusion and motor abnormalities in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) compared with erosive esophagitis. METHODS: We performed upper GI endoscopy, an acid perfusion test and esophageal manometry on 113 NERD patients and 37 erosive esophagitis patients. RESULTS: The frequency of acid sensitization was 69.9% in NERD and 67.6% in erosive esophagitis. The frequency of esophageal motor abnormality in patients with erosive esophagitis (48.6%) was higher than in patients with NERD (25.7%, P = 0.014). The most frequent esophageal motor abnormality was IEM. The frequency of IEM was 15.9% in NERD patients, 42.9% in Los Angeles grade A, 53.8% in Los Angeles grade B and 66.7% in Los Angeles grade C esophagitis (chi(2) = 16.67, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that no difference exists between visceral hypersensitivity in patients with NERD and those with erosive esophagitis, and that IEM occurs in NERD as well as erosive esophagitis patients. The occurrence of IEM is associated with the endoscopic severity of gastroesophageal reflux disease.     

Relevance of ineffective esophageal motility with erosive and nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

Introduction: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a frequent finding in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It is responsible for delayed acid clearance as it affects esophageal emptying and saliva transport. Since erosive GERD is a more severe disease than nonerosive GERD, it may be associated with IEM, which delays esophageal clearance. Objective : We investigated the role of IEM in patients with erosive and nonerosive GERD. Methods: We enrolled 100 patients with heartburn and a primary diagnosis of GERD referred to the GI motility department of RCGLD of Shahid Beheshti University between January 2002 and January 2005. Based on endoscopic findings, the patients were classified into two groups of erosive GERD and nonerosive GERD. Manometry and 24-hour ambulatory pH-metry was performed in all patients. Results: Seventy-seven patients completed the study: 31 (40.3%) with erosive GERD and 46 (59.7%) with nonerosive GERD. IEM was present in 38.7% of patients with erosive GERD and in 28.3% of those with nonerosive GERD (p=0.18). A low lower esophageal sphincter pressure was present in 45.2% of patients with erosive GERD, and in 45.7% of those with nonerosive GERD (p=0.97). Abnormal acid reflux was present in 32.3% and 41.3% of patients with erosive and nonerosive GERD, respectively (p=0.42). Conclusion: There was no difference in the prevalence of IEM between patients with erosive and nonerosive GERD. IEM could be an integral part of GERD and may not always be associated with mucosal injury.     

Ineffective esophageal motility: the most common motility abnormality in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms

OBJECTIVE: The association of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and respiratory symptoms is well known. The coexistence of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM, low-amplitude [< 30 mm Hg] or nontransmitted contractions in > or = 30% of 10 wet swallows in the distal esophagus) in patients with GERD has recently been demonstrated. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of IEM in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Manometry and pH studies of 98 consecutive patients with respiratory symptoms and abnormal reflux shown by pH-metry were reviewed. Symptoms were chronic cough (n = 43), asthma (n = 13), and laryngitis (n = 42). Sixty-six patients with heartburn with no extraesophageal manifestations were used as a control group. Total esophageal acid clearance (EAC) time was calculated for each patient. RESULTS: IEM was the most common motility abnormality seen in all groups of GERD patients. It was seen significantly more often in patients with chronic cough (41%) (p = 0.003) or asthma (53%) (p = 0.01), and numerically more often in patients with laryngitis (31%) than in patients with heartburn (19%). Diffuse esophageal spasm and nutcracker esophagus were rarely seen. Incidence of hypertensive or hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter was similar across all groups. The total EAC time was longer (median: 1.51 min/episode) (p = 0.01) in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms than in patients with heartburn (median: 0.72 min/episode). CONCLUSIONS: IEM is the most prevalent motility abnormality in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms. Coexistence of IEM with GER may place patients at high risk for respiratory symptoms due to the associated delayed esophageal acid clearance seen with this motility abnormality.     

Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) (The Primary Finding in Patients with Nonspecific Esophageal Motility Disorder)

Nonspecific esophageal motility disorder (NEMD)is a vague category used to include patients with poorlydefined esophageal contraction abnormalities. Thecriteria include ineffective contractionwaves, ie, peristaltic waves that are either of lowamplitude or are not transmitted. The aim of this studywas to identify the prevalence of ineffective esophagealmotility (IEM) found during manometry testing and to evaluate esophageal acid exposure andesophageal acid clearance (EAC) in patients with IEMcompared to those with other motility findings. Weanalyzed esophageal manometric tracings from 600consecutive patients undergoing manometry in our laboratoryfollowing a specific protocol from April 1992 throughOctober 1994 to identify the frequency of ineffectivecontractions and the percentages of other motility abnormalities present in patients meetingcriteria for NEMD. Comparison of acid exposure and EACwas made with 150 patients who also had both esophagealmanometry and pH-metry over the same time period. Sixty-one of 600 patients (10%) met thediagnostic criteria for NEMD. Sixty of 61 (98% ) ofthese patients had IEM, defined by at least 30%ineffective contractions out of 10 wet swallows.Thirty-five of these patients also underwent ambulatoryesophageal pH monitoring. Patients with IEM demonstratedsignificant increases in both recumbent medianpercentage of time of pH 4 (4.5%) and median distal EAC (4.2 min/episode) compared to those with normalmotility (0.2%, 1 min/episode), diffuse esophageal spasm(0%, 0.6 min/episode), hypertensive LES (0%, 1.8min/episode), and nutcracker esophagus (0.4% 1.6 min/episode). Recumbent acid exposure inIEM did not differ significantly from that in patientswith systemic scleroderma (SSc) for either variable(5.4%, 4.2 min/episode). We propose that IEM is a more appropriate term and should replace NEMD,giving it a more specific manometric identity. IEMpatients demonstrate a distinctive recumbent refluxpattern, similar to that seen in patients with SSc. This finding indicates that there is anassociation between IEM and recumbent GER. Whether IEMis the cause or the effect of increased esophageal acidexposure remains to be determined.     

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.     

Esophageal Histology Does Not Provide Additional Useful Information Over Clinical Assessment in Identifying Reflux Patients Presenting for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

We prospectively evaluated the value of histology in identifying gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in consecutive patients enrolled for upper endoscopy. GERD was defined as heartburn occurring at least weekly. Macroscopic esophagitis was graded and an esophageal biopsy was taken 2 cm above the gastroesophageal junction. Histological esophagitis was identified by: (1) basal cell hyperplasia >15%, (2) increased papillary length >66%, and (3) infiltration by leukocytes/eosinophils. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of histological esophagitis in patients with and without typical reflux symptoms, with and without endoscopic changes, or both were evaluated. Of 178 patients, reflux symptoms were present in 59% (N = 105) and esophageal erosions in 19% (N = 34); 75 patients had reflux symptoms but no erosions. While the specificity of histology was adequate (78%), it was insensitive (30%). The positive and negative predictive values were 67% and 44%, respectively. No single individual parameter was better than any other. Thus, histology appears to be of no additional value in identifying GERD.