The impact of upper GI endoscopy referral volume on the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications: a 1-year cross-sectional study in a referral area with 260,000 inhabitants

OBJECTIVES: Less than half of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have endoscopic erosive esophagitis (endoscopy positive GERD). Symptomatic GERD and Barrett's esophagus (BE), however, are risk factors for esophageal and gastric cardia adenocarcinomas. The aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence of GERD-related findings on endoscopy according to the volume of referrals to upper GI endoscopy. METHODS: The following data were gathered on all GERD patients who were sent for upper GI endoscopy by general practitioners (GPs) during 1 yr in our hospital referral area of 260,000 inhabitants: the number of referrals to endoscopy in health care units, and the numbers of endoscopy positive GERD, BE, and esophageal neoplasms. Patients with symptoms or signs suggesting acute upper GI bleeding and those attending follow-up endoscopy (e.g., for BE, peptic ulcer, or dysplasia) were excluded, as were patients with previous esophagogastric surgery or Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 3378 patients, with a mean age of 58.1 yr (95% CI = 57.5-58.6) and a male:female ratio of 1:1.3. Of the 760 patients who underwent endoscopy because of heartburn or regurgitation, 254 (33.4%) had endoscopy positive (erosive) GERD, 11 (1.4%) BE (one with esophageal adenocarcinoma), six (0.8%) esophageal ulcer, and one peptic esophageal stricture (0.1%). Between health care units, the referrals to endoscopy (number of endoscopies/population/yr) varied from 0.6 to 9.2/1000 inhabitants/yr (median 3.3/1000/yr). In health care units with "high" referral volumes (> or = 3.3 referrals/1000/yr, N = 15, 1297 patients) and "low" referral volumes (< 3.3/1000/yr, N = 15, 2081 patients), the numbers of endoscopy positive GERD were 281 (21.7%) versus 308 (14.9%, p < 0.001), esophageal ulcer 13 (1.0%) versus 14 (0.7%, p = 0.3), esophageal stricture five (0.4%) versus seven (0.3%, p = 0.4), Barrett's esophagus eight (0.6%) versus 16 (0.8%, p = 0.6), and esophageal neoplasm two (0.2%) versus six (0.3%, p = 0.2). Five of the neoplasms were squamous cell carcinomas, two were adenocarcinomas, and one was lymphoma. Multivariate analyses showed that independent risk factors for endoscopy positive GERD were male sex (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.2-1.7), GERD symptoms (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 2.7-4.0), dysphagia (OR = 1.4,95% CI = 1.0-2.1), and living in a high referral area (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.2-1.7). Independent risk factors for BE were male sex (OR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.1-6.1) and GERD symptoms (OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.3-6.6), whereas the only independent risk factor for esophageal neoplasm was dysphagia (OR = 40.0 (95% CI = 7.7-207.5). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in GPs' referrals for endoscopy. Increasing the referral volume significantly increases the proportion of endoscopy positive GERD cases, but not that of GERD complications such as BE, esophageal ulcer, peptic stricture, or esophageal neoplasms.     

Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux as a cause of idiopathic hoarseness

Eleven patients presenting to an ear, nose, and throat specialist were diagnosed as having idiopathic hoarseness and prospectively evaluated for evidence of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) to determine if an association existed. Testing for GER included voice analysis, EGD, esophageal manometry, Bernstein test, and ambulatory 24-hr pH monitoring. Six of the 11 (55%) hoarse patients studied had GER by pH monitoring (mean score 105 +/- 23), and most reflux episodes were supine and prolonged (20.9 +/- 8.2% supine pH less than 4.0, longest 129 min). All patients with abnormal pH monitoring had endoscopic esophagitis (Barrett's esophagus in two, peptic stricture in one, and erosive esophagitis in three), while none of the patients with normal scores had esophagitis. Symptoms of throat pain or nocturnal heartburn were more common in the GER-positive patients (6 of 6 vs 1 of 5), and clinically helpful in discriminating which hoarse patients had pathologic GER. Treatment with ranitidine 150 mg per os twice a day for 12 weeks improved esophagitis in all patients, but the voice improved in only one of the two patients with completely healed esophagitis. This study suggests that (1) GER is frequently seen in patients with idiopathic hoarseness (55%), (2) hoarse patients with throat pain or nocturnal heartburn are likely to have severe esophagitis and should be evaluated by EGD, and (3) additional antireflux and voice therapy may be necessary to heal esophagitis and improve the voice.     

Multimodality evaluation of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms who have failed empiric proton pump inhibitor therapy

Patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), such as chest pain, heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia, are typically treated initially with a course of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The evaluation of patients who have either not responded at all or partially and inadequately responded to such therapy requires a more detailed history and may involve an endoscopy and esophageal biopsies, followed by esophageal manometry, ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring, and gastric emptying scanning. To assess the merits of a multimodality ‘structural’ and ‘functional’ assessment of the esophagus in patients who have inadequately controlled GERD symptoms despite using empiric PPI, a retrospective cohort study of patients without any response or with poor symptomatic control to empiric PPI (>2 months duration) who were referred to an Esophageal Studies Unit was conducted. Patients were studied using symptom questionnaires, endoscopy (+ or – for erosive disease, or Barrett's metaplasia) and multilevel esophageal biopsies (eosinophilia, metaplasia), esophageal motility (aperistalsis, dysmotility), 24‐hour ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring (+ if % total time pH < 4 > 5%), and gastric emptying scanning (+ if >10% retention at 4 hours and >70% at 2 hours). Over 3 years, 275 patients (147 men and 128 women) aged 16–89 years underwent complete multimodality testing. Forty percent (n= 109) had nonerosive reflux disease (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]–, biopsy–, pH+); 19.3% (n= 53) had erosive esophagitis (EGD+); 5.5% (n= 15) Barrett's esophagus (EGD+, metaplasia+); 5.5% (n= 15) eosinophilic esophagitis (biopsy+); 2.5% (n= 7) had achalasia and 5.8% (n= 16) other dysmotility (motility+, pH–); 16% (n= 44) had functional heartburn (EGD–, pH–), and 5.8% (n= 16) had gastroparesis (gastric scan+). Cumulative symptom scores for chest pain, heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia were similar among the groups (mean range 1.1–1.35 on a 0–3 scale). Multimodality evaluation changed the diagnosis of GERD in 34.5% of cases and led to or guided alternative therapies in 42%. Overlap diagnoses were frequent: 10/15 (67%) of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, 12/16 (75%) of patients with gastroparesis, and 11/23 (48%) of patients with achalasia or dysmotility had concomitant pathologic acid reflux by pH studies. Patients with persistent GERD symptoms despite empiric PPI therapy benefit from multimodality evaluation that may change the diagnosis and guide therapy in more than one third of such cases. Because symptoms are not specific and overlap diagnoses are frequent and multifaceted, objective evidence‐driven therapies should be considered in such patients.     

Screening for Barrett's esophagus in colonoscopy patients with and without heartburn

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The population prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is uncertain. Our aim was to describe the prevalence of BE in a volunteer population. METHODS: Upper endoscopy (EGD) was performed in 961 persons with no prior history of EGD who were scheduled for colonoscopy. Symptom questionnaires were completed prior to endoscopy. Biopsy specimens were taken from the gastric cardia and any columnar mucosa extending > or =5 mm into the tubular esophagus and from the stomach for H. pylori infection in the last 812 patients. RESULTS: The study sample was biased toward persons undergoing colonoscopy, males, and persons with upper GI symptoms. The prevalence of BE was 65 of 961 (6.8%) patients, including 12 (1.2%) with long-segment BE (LSBE). Among 556 subjects who had never had heartburn, the prevalences of BE and LSBE were 5.6% and 0.36%, respectively. Among 384 subjects with a history of any heartburn, the prevalences of BE and LSBE were 8.3% and 2.6%, respectively. In a univariate analysis, LSBE was more common in those with any heartburn vs. those with no heartburn (P = 0.01), but the sample size was insufficient to allow multivariate analysis of predictors of LSBE. In a multivariate analysis, BE was associated with increasing age (P = 0.02), white race (P = 0.03), and negative H. pylori status (P = 0.04). Overall, BE was not associated with heartburn, although heartburn was more common in persons with LSBE or circumferential short segments. CONCLUSIONS: LSBE is very uncommon in patients who have no history of heartburn. SSBE is relatively common in persons age > or =40 years with no prior endoscopy, irrespective of heartburn history.     

Effect of omeprazole on symptoms and ultrastructural esophageal damage in acid bile reflux

AIM: To value whether omeprazole could induce the healing of DIS and regression of symptoms in patients with DGER. METHODS: We enrolled 15 symptomatic patients with a pathological esophageal 24-h pH-metry and bilimetry. Patients underwent endoscopy and biopsies were taken from the distal esophagus. Specimens were analyzed at histology and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Patients were treated with omeprazole 40 mg/d for 3 mo and then endoscopy with biopsies was repeated. Patients with persistent heartburn and/or with an incomplete recovery of DIS were treated for 3 more months and endoscopy with biopsies was performed. RESULTS: Nine patients had a non-erosive reflux disease at endoscopy (NERD) while 6 had erosive esophagitis (ERD). At histology, of the 6 patients with erosive esophagitis, 5 had mild esophagitis and 1 moderate esophagitis. No patients with NERD showed histological signs of esophagitis. After 3 mo of therapy, 13/15 patients (86.7%,P<0.01) showed a complete recovery of DIS and disappearance of heartburn. Of the 2 patients treated for 3 more months, complete recovery of DIS and heartburn were achieved in one. CONCLUSION: Three or 6 mo of omeprazole therapy led to a complete regression of the ultrastructural esophageal damage in 86.7% and in 93% of patients with DGER, NERD and ERD respectively. The ultrastructural recovery of the epithelium was accompanied by regression of heartburn in all cases.     

Predictors of early recurrence of benign esophageal strictures

OBJECTIVE: In the era of liberal proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, benign esophageal strictures remain a significant management problem, with 30-40% of patients experiencing symptomatic recurrence within 1 yr of successful dilation. We therefore sought to examine predictors of early recurrence of benign esophageal strictures after endoscopic dilation. METHODS: Predictors for stricture recurrence were examined in 87 consecutive outpatients undergoing initial dilation over a 1-yr period. Patients with symptomatic recurrence of dysphagia requiring repeat dilation within 1 yr of initial successful dilation (cases) were compared to patients who did not require redilation (controls). Predictors were assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis of significant predictors using time to first redilation was also performed. RESULTS: Of the patients, 36 required repeat dilation within 1 yr, whereas 51 did not (median follow-up, 33 months). Of all strictures, 67 (77%) were peptic, with the remainder caused by radiation, drug-related injury, or congenital stenosis, among other causes. In multivariate analysis, nonpeptic strictures were significant predictors for early recurrence, as was a narrower stricture diameter. For peptic strictures, the persistence of heartburn after dilation and the presence of a hiatal hernia were significant predictors. Of all peptic strictures, 84% of patients were on PPIs after dilation, with no difference between cases and controls. Of all patients with persistent heartburn after dilation, 90% were on PPIs. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of heartburn after dilation is a strong predictor for early symptomatic recurrence of benign esophageal peptic strictures, despite a high rate of PPI use. This may suggest persistent acid reflux requiring optimization of acid reduction therapy. Alternatively, combined acid and alkaline reflux may account for progressive injury despite PPI therapy. Esophageal pH studies may be invaluable in making the distinction between acid and non-acidic (alkaline) reflux. Nonpeptic strictures are also more likely to have early recurrences and are therefore more difficult to manage.     

Diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD) is a common disease with a prevalence as high as 10%-20% in the western world. The disease can manifest in various symptoms which can be grouped into typical,atypi-cal and extra-esophageal symptoms. Those with the highest specificity for GERD are acid regurgitation and heartburn. In the absence of alarm symptoms,these symptoms can allow one to make a presumptive diagnosis and initiate empiric therapy. In certain situations,further diagnostic testing is needed to confirm the diagnosis as well as to assess for complications or alternate causes for the symptoms. GERD complications include erosive esophagitis,peptic stricture,Barrett's esophagus,esophageal adenocarcinoma and pulmonary disease. Management of GERD may involve lifestyle modification,medical therapy and surgical therapy. Life-style modifications including weight loss and/or head of bed elevation have been shown to improve esophageal pH and/or GERD symptoms. Medical therapy involves acid suppression which can be achieved with antacids,histamine-receptor antagonists or proton-pump inhibitors. Whereas most patients can be effectively managed with medical therapy,others may go on to require anti-reflux surgery after undergoing a proper pre-operative evaluation. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current approach to the diagnosis and treatment of gas-troesophageal reflux disease.     

Screening for esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus with wireless esophageal capsule endoscopy: a multicenter prospective trial in patients with reflux symptoms

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is a new technology that allows noninvasive investigation of the esophagus. Our aim was to evaluate prospectively the diagnostic yield of ECE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients (40 men, mean age 54 yr) referred to five endoscopic centers for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were enrolled. Patients first underwent ECE, then EGD; endoscopists who performed the EGD were blind to the ECE data that were interpreted separately by two independent readers. The Los Angeles, Prague, and Montreal classification systems were used to describe endoscopic findings. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients completed the study. Esophagitis and endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia (ESEM) were present in 24 and 10 patients, respectively. Columnar lining was histologically confirmed in seven patients (3 with specialized intestinal metaplasia and 4 with gastric metaplasia). The kappa values for interobserver agreement regarding the diagnosis of esophagitis and ESEM were 0.67 (0.49-0.85) and 0.49 (0.17-0.81), respectively. The diagnostic yields of ECE to detect esophagitis and ESEM were as follows: sensitivity 79% and 60%, specificity 94% and 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 83% and 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 92% and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSION: As a screening tool in patients with reflux symptoms, ECE has an excellent specificity and NPV for the diagnosis of esophagitis and ESEM. However, its sensitivity for the diagnosis of ESEM is not optimal. Further studies are necessary to improve the procedure, and to compare the cost-effectiveness of strategies using ECE or EGD.     

Use of the Montreal global definition as an assessment of quality of life in reflux disease

According to the Montreal Consensus Group's classification, gastroesophageal reflux disease develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications such as esophagitis. The characteristic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms included in this statement are retrosternal burning and regurgitation. Troublesome is meant to imply that these symptoms impact on the well-being of affected individuals; in essence, quality of life (QOL). Whether heartburn and regurgitation symptoms would be characterized as more troublesome in those with confirmed pathologic acid reflux was determined. A second purpose was to assess how well troublesome scores correlated with the results of a validated, disease-specific QOL instrument. Subjects who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with 48-hour wireless esophageal pH testing off proton pump inhibitor therapy were interviewed. Esophagitis on EGD or pH < 4.0 for ≥4.5% of time over the 2-day period was considered positive for acid reflux. Assessment of how troublesome their symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation were made using separate 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS). Subjects were then asked to complete the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) 25-item questionnaire. Sixty-seven patients (21 males, 46 females) with mean age 47.8 ± 15.6 years were identified. Forty (59.7%) had an EGD or pH study positive for acid reflux. Overall 35/40 (87.5%) complained of either heartburn or regurgitation. There was no difference (P= 0.80) in heartburn VAS troublesome ratings for those with (54.0 ± 43.9) and without (56.7 ± 37.6) confirmed acid reflux. The same was true for regurgitation VAS troublesome ratings (P= 0.62). Likewise, mean QOLRAD scores did not differ between those with and without confirmed acid reflux by pH or EGD (4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 1.7; P= 0.61). There was a moderately strong inverse correlation between patient self-rated VAS troublesome scores for both heartburn and regurgitation with each dimension (emotional distress, sleep disturbance, eating problems, physical/social functioning, and vitality) of the QOLRAD (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). In regression analysis, both heartburn and regurgitation troublesome ratings were associated with the overall QOLRAD score independent of pH data, frequency of reflux episodes, age, and gender. Use of the term troublesome in the Montreal Consensus Group classification is supported by our findings. It correlates well with the results of a validated disease-specific QOL instrument. Use of heartburn and regurgitation VAS may serve as accurate measures of the burden of reflux disease on patients. It is likely that these scales will not have sufficient discriminate value to identify individuals with pathologic acid reflux from those with negative studies.     

Peptic Strictures of the Esophagus

Peptic esophageal strictures are a common sequelae of long-standing reflux esophagitis. Factors predisposing to stricture formation are poorly understood; however, stricture patients are typically older, have a longer duration of reflux symptoms, have significantly lower lower esophageal sphincter pressures, and more frequently display abnormal esophageal motility than reflux patients without strictures. A careful history should suggest the diagnosis in most cases, but should be confirmed with a barium esophagram followed by endoscopy with biopsies to exclude malignancy. The therapeutic armamentarium for treating peptic strictures has greatly expanded during the past 30 yr. It now includes potent anti-secretory medications, bougienage with flexible polyethylene dilators or balloons, and anti-reflux surgery. Aggressive medical therapy combined with bougienage is safe and effective treatment for the majority of stricture patients, with surgery being reserved for the subset of patients with intractable esophagitis, irreversibly damaged esophagus, or extraesophageal manifestations.     

Nonerosive reflux disease

Until recently, the finding of erosive esophagitis in patients with chronic heartburn was thought to indicate more severe gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, recent data suggests that this is not necessarily true. Seventy-five percent of patient's chronic heartburn have moderate to severe symptoms, regardless of the presence or absence of esophagitis. Nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) is characterized by heartburn symptoms for at least 3 months with no evidence of esophagitis. Patients with NERD are similar to patients with esophagitis in symptom severity, quality of life scores, and response to anti-reflux therapy. There are probably 3 distinct groups of NERD patients, those with pathologic reflux, those with a heightened sensitivity to physiologic reflux and those with other medical problems mistaken for reflux. This article discusses the 3 clinical scenarios.     

Patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 with gastrinomas have an increased risk of severe esophageal disease including stricture and the premalignant condition, Barrett's esophagus

CONTEXT: Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) patients frequently develop Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (MEN1/ZES). Although esophageal reflux symptoms are common in these patients, little is known about long-term occurrence of severe peptic esophageal disease including strictures and Barrett's esophagus (BE). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to prospectively analyze the frequency of severe peptic esophageal disease in ZES patients with and without MEN1. SETTING: The study was conducted at a tertiary care research center. PATIENTS: Two hundred ninety-five patients (80 = MEN1/ZES, 215 = sporadic ZES) participated in a prospective study. INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessment of MEN1, acid hypersecretion, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy/biopsies, and tumor status were measured initially and at each follow-up. Esophageal manometry was performed in 89 patients. Frequency and type of esophageal disease were correlated with clinical/laboratory/tumoral features of ZES/MEN1. RESULTS: In MEN1/ZES patients, esophageal stricture was 3-fold higher, BE 5-fold higher, and dysplasia 8-fold higher, and one patient died of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Esophageal symptoms were more frequent or severe in MEN1/ZES, but known risk factors for severe esophageal disease and ZES-specific features did not differ between MEN1/ZES and sporadic ZES. In MEN1/ZES, the onset of ZES was 10 yr earlier, and H2-antagonists were used longer and at lower doses. MEN1/ZES patients with esophageal disease differed from those without in that ZES diagnosis was delayed longer, esophageal symptoms were more frequent or severe, hiatal hernias were more frequent, esophagitis or pyloric scarring was more common, basal acid output was higher, and hyperparathyroidism was underdiagnosed. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that MEN1/ZES patients have a higher incidence of severe esophageal disease including the premalignant condition BE and identifies factors important for their pathogenesis that need to be incorporated into their long-term treatment.     

Nonerosive reflux disease

Nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) is the most common phenotype of gastroesophageal reflux disease. By definition, patients with NERD have typical reflux symptoms caused by the intraesophageal reflux of gastric contents but have no visible esophageal mucosal injury. This is in contrast to patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD) or Barrett's esophagus (BE) who have obvious esophageal mucosal injury on endosco-py. Only 50% of patients with NERD have pathologic esophageal acid exposure as detected on 24-h pH monitoring. NERD patients with physiologic esophageal acid exposure and good temporal correlation of symptoms with reflux events are considered to have esophageal hypersensitivity, while patients with no symptom-reflux correlation are considered to have functional heartburn. It is possible yet uncommon for NERD to progress to severe ERD (i.e. LA Grade C or D) or BE. Patients with NERD and pathologic esophageal acid exposure have motor dysfunction and acid reflux abnormalities that are similar to patients with ERD and BE, whereas NERD patients with physiologic esophageal acid exposure have minimal abnormalities and are not much different than healthy controls. The pathological feature most indicative of NERD is the presence of dilated intercellular spaces within squamous epithelium, an ultrastructural abnormality readily identified on transmission electron microscopy but also on light microscopy. A symptomatic response to an empiric trial of high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is a simple and useful strategy to establish the diagnosis of NERD, although histology and pH monitoring may be useful in confirming the diagnosis. Patients with NERD suffer similar decrements in quality of life as do patients with erosive esophagitis. Therapy is aimed at eliminating or reducing symptoms and improving quality of life. PPIs are the most effective agents for the treatment of NERD although they are less effective in providing symptom relief than in patients with erosive esophagitis. Laparoscopic antireflux surgery is an effective therapy for selected patients with NERD and outcomes are better when performed in high volume centers.     

Epidemiology and significance of Barrett's esophagus

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is of interest because of its recognized association with esophageal adenocarcinoma. While BE develops in a minority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, its diagnosis has markedly increased over the last 30 years. Although a concurrent increase in the number of endoscopies performed annually has improved the ability to diagnose BE, the increase in prevalence appears to be a true finding. Conflicting data in the literature confound an accurate assessment of the risk for adenocarcinoma in patients with BE. Certain factors associated with BE also hold for esophageal adenocarcinoma: greater severity of reflux symptoms, specific pattern of symptoms (particularly nocturnal), longer duration of symptoms, white race, and male gender. One report has suggested a 45-fold increase in cancer risk for patients with frequent, severe and long-standing heartburn symptoms. New cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma are also increasing, especially in white males, with over 6,000 new cases diagnosed in 1995. BE can progress to esophageal dysplasia and adenocarcinoma; hence, early diagnosis and surveillance of BE and treatment of high-grade dysplasia leads to improved survival. The reported risk of developing cancer in BE ranges from 0.4 to 1.9%/year of follow-up. Most recent studies have tended to report rates of 0.5%/year or lower. Despite these data and concerns, at least two actuarial studies have suggested that the risk of death in patients with BE does not differ from that of a control population. This review of the literature focuses on the epidemiology of BE and the associated incidence of its sequelae.     

Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus in Hispanics Is Similar to Caucasians

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is considered to be adisease of white males with a prevalence ranging from0.5 to 4.0% in patients undergoing upper endoscopy (EGD)for any indication, and from 12 to 15% in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).The prevalence of BE in Hispanics is not known, but itis assumed to be lower. The aims of this study were todetermine the prevalence of BE in Hispanic patients and to compare demographic and endoscopiccharacteristics with Caucasian patients with BE. Recordsof patients undergoing an EGD between October 1993 andOctober 1996 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included in the study only if they hadcolumnar-appearing esophageal mucosa at endoscopy andintestinal metaplasia with Alcian blue-staining gobletcells on biopsy. An extensive chart review was performed in patients with BE. There were 75 new cases ofBE discovered: 60 (80%) were Caucasians, 6 (8%)Hispanics, 1 (1.4%) Native American, and 8 (10.6%)patients with either unknown or unconfirmed ethnicity. Of the 75 patients, 74 male, and the mean agewas 65 ± 11.4 years (range 36-92 years). Theprevalence of BE in Caucasians and Hispanics undergoingEGD for any reason was similar (5.3% and 3.8%,respectively, P = 0.563). The prevalence of BE in patientspresenting with GERD symptoms was also similar betweenCaucasians and Hispanics (25% and 16%, respectively, P= 0.304). The two groups did not differ significantly with respect to age, symptoms, habits, orendoscopic findings. In conclusion, the prevalence of BEamong Hispanic patients is similar to Caucasianpatients, an unexpected finding.     

胃镜检查对有典型烧心症状患者的诊断价值

目的 探讨胃镜检查对有典型烧心症状患者的诊断价值.方法 收集2006年3月至2007年2月接受胃镜检查的5042例无报警症状的门诊患者,对每例患者进行问卷调查并记录其胃镜检查结果.结果 313例(6.2%)有典型烧心症状,其中99例(31.6%)诊断为糜烂性食管炎(EE),10例(3.2%)诊断为Barrett食管,21例(6.7%)诊断为消化性溃疡,3例(0.9%)诊断为恶性肿瘤(1例食管鳞癌,2例胃腺癌).Logistic回归分析显示,年龄＞50岁、男性、体重超重和饮酒是烧心患者中与阳性胃镜表现相关的危险因素(P值均＜0.05);而年龄＞50岁、男性、饮酒和超重是EE的独立危险因子(P值均＜0.05);男性和幽门螺杆菌感染是烧心患者中消化性溃疡的独立危险因子(P值均＜0.05).结论 在我国对有典型烧心症状却无报警症状的患者,仍需行胃镜检查以避免肿瘤的漏诊.     

Guidelines for the management of dyspepsia

Dyspepsia is a chronic or recurrent pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen; patients with predominant or frequent (more than once a week) heartburn or acid regurgitation, should be considered to have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) until proven otherwise. Dyspeptic patients over 55 yr of age, or those with alarm features should undergo prompt esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). In all other patients, there are two approximately equivalent options: (i) test and treat for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) using a validated noninvasive test and a trial of acid suppression if eradication is successful but symptoms do not resolve or (ii) an empiric trial of acid suppression with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for 4-8 wk. The test-and-treat option is preferable in populations with a moderate to high prevalence of H. pylori infection (> or =10%); empirical PPI is an initial option in low prevalence situations. If initial acid suppression fails after 2-4 wk, it is reasonable to consider changing drug class or dosing. If the patient fails to respond or relapses rapidly on stopping antisecretory therapy, then the test-and-treat strategy is best applied before consideration of referral for EGD. Prokinetics are not currently recommended as first-line therapy for uninvestigated dyspepsia. EGD is not mandatory in those who remain symptomatic as the yield is low; the decision to endoscope or not must be based on clinical judgement. In patients who do respond to initial therapy, stop treatment after 4-8 wk; if symptoms recur, another course of the same treatment is justified. The management of functional dyspepsia is challenging when initial antisecretory therapy and H. pylori eradication fails. There are very limited data to support the use of low-dose tricyclic antidepressants or psychological treatments in functional dyspepsia.     

Tongue-like Barrett＇s esophagus is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease

AIM： To test this hypothesis of barrett esophagus （BE） classified into two types and to further determine if there was any correlation between the shape of endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia （ESEM）, prevalence of reflux esophagitis （RE） and heartburn. METHODS： A total of 6504 Japanese who underwent endoscopy for their annual stomach check-up were enrolled in this study. BE was detected without histological confirmation that is ESEM. We originally classified cases of ESEM into 3 types based on its shape： Tongue-like （T type）, Dome-like （D type） and Wave-like （W type） ESEM. The respective subjects were prospectively asked to complete questionnaires concerning the symptoms of heartburn, dysphagia, and abdominal pain for a one-month period. RESULTS： ESEM was observed in 10.3% of 6504 subjects （ESEM 〈 1 cm, 9.4%; 1cm≤ESEM 〈 3 cm, 1.7%; ESEM≥3 cm, 0.5%）. The frequency of ESEM was significantly higher in males compared with female subjects. Statistical analysis showed that the prevalence of heartburn and RE were significantly higher in the T type ESEM than in the W type ESEM （P 〈 0.05）. CONCLUSION： The T type ESEM was strongly associated with reflux symptoms and RE whereas the W type ESEM was not associated with GERD.     

Comparison of esophageal acid exposure distribution along the esophagus among the different gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) groups

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) have the lowest esophageal acid exposure profile compared with the other gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) groups. AIM: To compare lower esophageal acid exposure recordings 1 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) with those 6 cm above the LES as well as to determine the characteristics of esophageal acid exposure along the esophagus among the different GERD groups. METHODS: Patients with classic heartburn symptoms were enrolled into the study. Patients were evaluated by a demographics questionnaire and the validated GERD Symptom Checklist. Upper endoscopy was performed to evaluate the presence of esophageal erosions and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Ambulatory pH testing was performed using a commercially available 4-sensor pH probe with sensors located 5 cm apart. The distal sensor was placed 1 cm above the LES. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients completed the study. Of those, 21 patients had NERD, 20 had erosive esophagitis (EE), and 23 had BE. All patient groups demonstrated greater esophageal acid exposure 1 cm above the LES than 6 cm above the LES. In NERD and EE, this phenomenon was primarily a result of a higher mean percentage of upright time with pH <4. Unlike patients with EE and BE, those with NERD had very little variation in esophageal acid exposure throughout the esophagus (total and supine). CONCLUSIONS: ALL GERD groups demonstrated significant greater esophageal acid exposure at the very distal portion of the esophagus, primarily as a result of short upright reflux events. Unlike erosive esophagitis and BE, NERD patients demonstrate a more homogenous acid distribution along the esophagus.