远端收缩积分和无效食管动力与胃食管反流的关系

目的探讨食管高分辨率测压（HRM）下远端收缩积分（DCI）和无效食管动力（IEM）与GERD 患者反流情况的关系。方法共纳入69例 GERD 患者,均完成食管 HRM、24 h pH 联合阻抗监测检查。应用 Pearson 相关分析研究 DCI、无效吞咽次数和 DeMeester 评分的相关性。根据10次5 mL液体吞咽试验发生无效吞咽的次数分成3组,5～10次无效吞咽为 IEM 组（21例）,1～4次无效吞咽为动力异常组（19例）,0次无效吞咽为动力正常组（29例）,采用 t 检验比较3组平均 DCI、残余的有效吞咽 DCI 平均值、DeMeester 评分、酸反流时间、食团暴露时间、近端反流次数的差异。结果69例 GERD患者中,其10次5 mL 液体吞咽平均 DCI 和 DeMeester 评分呈负相关（r＝－0．363,P ＝0．003）,无效吞咽次数和 DeMeester 评分呈正相关（r＝0．374,P ＝0．002）。动力正常组、动力异常组和 IEM 组10次5 mL液体吞咽平均 DCI 分别为（1458．96±545．10）、（986．48±577．50）和（288．50±167．25）mmHg·s·cm, IEM 组低于动力正常组和动力异常组（t＝－11．42、－2．12,P 均＜0．05）。动力正常组、动力异常组和IEM 组残余的有效吞咽 DCI 平均值分别为（1458．96±545．10）、（1187．90±669．40）和（450．78±350．73）mmHg·s·cm,IEM 组低于动力正常组和动力异常组（t＝－8．05、－5．27,P 均＜0．01）。IEM组的 DeMeester 评分为（15．42±8．79）分,高于动力正常组的（6．34±3．45）分,差异有统计学意义（t ＝2．43,P ＜0．05）。IEM 组的酸反流时间、食团暴露时间分别为（54．93±37．07）min、（0．64±0．49）％,分别长于动力异常组的（37．37±22．66）min、（0．52±0．24）％,动力正常组的（21．22±13．98）min、（0．39±0．14）％,差异均有统计学意义（t＝2．36、2．17,2．60、2．54,P 均＜0．05）。IEM 组和动力异常组的总反流次数分别为（67．10±32．94）、（57．26±38．90）次,均多于动力正常组的（44．61±23．84）次,差异均有统计学意义（t＝2．48、2．17,P 均＜0．05）。结论DCI 和无效吞咽次数在一定程度上可预测GERD 患者发生反流的情况,IEM 组食管体部收缩力度最弱,食管对反流物的廓清能力最差。     

难治性与非难治性胃食管反流病食管动力比较

目的 :比较难治性胃食管反流病(RGERD)与非RGERD食管动力特点的差异。方法 :回顾分析2011年5月至2014年5月我院消化科进行高分辨率食管测压的GERD患者86例,其中RGERD组44例,非RGERD组42例,比较2组患者食管动力特点的差异。结果:RGERD组与非RGERD组食管下括约肌(LES)长度分别为(2.6±0.7)和(3.5±0.9)cm,LES静息压分别为(16.3±8.0)和(20.3±8.6)mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa),远端波波幅分别为(65.7±30.1)和(80.1±34.9)mmHg,食团内压(IBP)分别为(11.6±4.0)和(13.6±3.7)mmHg,差异有统计学意义(t=5.128、2.235、2.044、2.400,均P0.05)。2组小型蠕动中断百分比差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:LES长度较短、LES静息压偏低、远端波波幅偏低、IBP偏低及小型蠕动中断百分比增加是RGERD的主要食管动力障碍,调控这些因素或许可以为RGERD的治疗提供新的方向。     

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.     

老年胃食管反流病患者高分辨率食管测压压力特点分析

目的探讨老年胃食管反流病患者高分辨率（HRM）测压压力特点。方法2011年6月至2012年9月对反酸、烧心伴胸骨后不适等症状的老年患者行HRM检测,分析其食管动力特点。结果老年反流性食管炎（RE）组的下食管括约肌（LES）总长度、腹腔内LES长度、LES平均静息压分别为（2．50±0．62）cm、（1．90±0．19）cm和（21．48±8．48）mmHg,低于老年非糜烂性反流病（NERD）组的（3．33±0．43）cm、（2．50±0．46）cm和（24．83±O．64）mmHg（P〈0．05）。结论老年RE患者存在明显的抗反流机制障碍,在其发病机制中可能发挥重要作用。而老年NERD患者的食管运动功能失调不明显,推测其他机制可能参与了其发病过程。     

高分辨率食管测压下胃食管反流病吞咽延迟时间与食管动力的相关性研究

目的探讨高分辨率食管测压（HRM）下胃食管反流病（GERD）患者吞咽延迟时间（DL）与食管动力的关系。方法51例行HRM且24h食管pH监测诊断为GERD的患者根据HRM结果是否存在食管异常蠕动分成动力异常组（n=28）和阴性组（n=23）,另选择14例非GERD者行HRM作为对照（对照组）,统计分析各组HRM监测结果。结果动力异常组DL（7．27±1．44）S明显高于阴性组的（6．704±41）S和对照组的（5．86±0．96）2,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．01）,且阴性组也明显高于对照组（P〈0．01）;动力异常组的远端收缩积分（712．49±703．10）mmHg·s·cm明显低于阴性组的（1285．85±850．83）mmHg·s·cm和对照组的（1109．74±611．70）mmHg·s·cm,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．01）,而阴性组与对照组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;各组间食管下括约肌压力、收缩前沿速度及食管下括约肌处食团内部压力差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论HRM下DL的延长与GERD患者食管蠕动减弱明显相关,GERD患者表现为更长的DL,证明食管动力的改变是GERD发生发展的重要环节。     

无效吞咽对食管动力和胃食管反流的影响

背景:研究发现食管体部动力障碍与胃食管反流病(GERD)相关,但确切关系仍不明确。目的:探讨食管高分辨率测压(HRM)中无效吞咽的比例对食管动力和胃食管反流的影响。方法:回顾性纳入2018年3月—2019年12月在南京医科大学第一附属医院完成食管HRM和24 h食管阻抗-pH监测、提示正常食管动力或轻度食管动力障碍的患者,根据HRM中10次温水吞咽中无效吞咽的次数分为4组：A组(0次)、B组(1～4次)、C组(5～7次)、D组(8～10次)。分析各组食管HRM、24 h食管阻抗-pH监测参数,评估无效吞咽辅助诊断病理性酸反流的价值。结果:共142例患者纳入研究,四组间测压参数异常者比例无明显差异(P均>0.05)。D组弱蠕动和无蠕动次数显著多于A组、B组,远端收缩积分(DCI)平均值和最高值显著低于A组、B组(P均<0.05),D组与C组间DCI平均值和最高值差异显著(P均<0.05)。酸暴露时间(AET)、DeMeester评分均随无效吞咽次数的增加逐渐增高(P均<0.05)。无效吞咽次数、弱蠕动次数与AET、DeMeester评分、酸暴露总次数之间存在适度正...     

肥胖胃食管反流病患者的食管动力特征和质子泵抑制剂疗效分析

背景：肥胖是胃食管反流病(GERD)的独立危险因素,但其机制仍不明确。目前关于标准剂量质子泵抑制剂(PPI)治疗肥胖GERD患者有效性的研究尚少。目的：研究肥胖对GERD患者食管动力和酸反流的影响,评估标准剂量PPI对肥胖GERD患者的疗效。方法：2017年1月—2021年10月就诊于安徽省立医院,初诊为GERD并符合入选标准的患者纳入本研究。比较体质指数(BMI)正常和肥胖(BMI≥28.0 kg/m²)GERD患者PPI治疗前的食管高分辨率测压和24 h食管pH-阻抗监测结果,以及2组患者接受标准剂量PPI(艾司奥美拉唑40 mg qd)治疗8周后的反流性疾病问卷(RDQ)评分变化和临床疗效。结果：共136例GERD患者纳入分析,其中BMI正常对照组102例,肥胖组34例。与对照组相比,肥胖组下食管括约肌(LES)长度缩短,胃食管压力梯度(GEPG)、长反流次数、食管酸暴露时间(AET)百分比和DeMeester评分增高(P均<0.05)。肥胖组治疗前RDQ评分高于对照组(P<0.05),经标准剂量PPI治疗8周后,对照组RDQ评分(7.86±2....     

无效食管动力在非糜烂性酸反流病中的临床意义

目的　探讨无效食管动力（ineffective esophageal motility,IEM）在非糜烂性酸反流相关疾病中的作用、成因及第四版芝加哥分类标准（CC v4.0）对IEM诊断的影响。方法　2018年1月—2020年1月,因酸反流相关症状在北京友谊医院消化内科行胃镜检查提示食管黏膜或结构无异常改变,且行食管高分辨测压检测和24 h食管pH值监测的63例患者纳入病例对照研究。根据食管高分辨测压检测结果,分别采用第三版芝加哥分类标准（CC v3.0）和CC v4.0进行分组,分为IEM组和正常动力组。主要对比分析同版分类标准下2组的食管高分辨测压检测结果、24 h食管pH值监测结果和最终诊断,以及不同版分类标准下同一观察指标2组间的变化程度。结果　63例患者中,非糜烂性胃食管反流病（non?erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease,NERD）14例、反流高敏感（reflux hypersensitivity,RH）19例、功能性烧心（functional heartburn,FH）30例。采用CC v3.0时,IEM组20例,其中NERD 9例、RH 5例、FH 6例;正常动力组43例,其中NERD 5例、RH 14例、FH 24例。采用CC v4.0时,IEM组16例,其中NERD 7例、RH 4例、FH 5例;正常动力组47例,其中NERD 7例、RH 15例、FH 25例。采用CC v3.0时,IEM组食管酸暴露时间［3.45（1.55,6.40）%比1.20（0.40,2.30）%,Z=-2.940,P=0.003］、DeMeester评分［13.8（5.8,21.4）分比5.3（2.9,10.0）分,Z=-2.851,P=0.004］明显高于正常动力组,食管下括约肌静息压［10.15（7.52,13.65）mmHg（1 mmHg=0.133 kPa）比15.40（11.20,21.60）mmHg,Z=-3.241,P=0.001］、4 s完整松弛压［（3.79±0.57）mmHg比（6.05±0.50）mmHg,t=2.727,P=0.008］、远端收缩积分［334.65（208.25,438.92）mmHg·s·cm比1 258.70（919.00,1 750.10）mmHg·s·cm,Z=-6.305,P<0.001］明显低于正常动力组。采用CC v4.0时,IEM组食管酸暴露时间、DeMeester评分亦均明显高于正常动力组（P均<0.05）,食管下括约肌静息压、4 s完整松弛压、远端收缩积分亦均明显低于正常动力组（P均<0.05）,另外,食管上括约肌静息压明显低于正常动力组［34.60（21.50,48.05）mmHg比49.67（36.75,61.10）mmHg,Z=-2.140,P=0.032］。结论　在非糜烂性酸反流相关疾病患者中,IEM与抗反流屏障功能受损相关,且与食管酸暴露相关。相比CC v3.0,CC v4.0在一定程度上可使得IEM患者异质性减少。     

难治性胃食管反流病食管动力异常与反流特点的研究

目的研究难治性胃食管反流病(refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease,rGERD)食管动力学特征和反流特点。方法应用高分辨率食管测压(HRM)监测87例GERD患者和70例rGERD患者食管动力学数据,同时应用便携式24 h食管pH-阻抗监测仪记录两组患者的酸暴露特点、反流类型及反流特点,分析比较两组患者间差异。结果rGERD患者中UES压力、LES压力显著低于GERD患者(P<0.05),rGERD患者LES的长度与GERD患者比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。rGERD患者中食管动力障碍比例高于GERD患者(70.00%vs 33.33%,χ2=4.891,P<0.05),DCI下降为特征的食管蠕动收缩障碍及间断收缩为特征的食管收缩节律障碍者比例两组比较,差异无统计学意义(57.14%vs 62.07%;42.86%vs 37.93%,χ2=3.275、2.822,P>0.05)。rGERD患者DeMeester评分高于GERD患者(P=0.014),rGERD患者反流性质中弱酸反流及非酸反流明显多于GERD患者(P弱酸=0.001,P非酸=0.017),而酸反流次数差异无统计学意义(P酸=0.385);rGERD患者反流性状中气体反流及气液混合反流次数多于GERD患者(P气=0.022,P气液=0.031),而液体反流次数差异无统计学意义(P液=0.742)。结论rGERD患者与GERD患者相比,存在UES压力偏低、LES压力下降和食管蠕动收缩障碍等食管动力学异常;rGERD患者反流以弱酸反流及碱反流为主,而GERD患者以酸反流为主,同时rGERD患者中气液混合反流所占比例大,而GERD患者以液体反流为主。     

马来酸曲美布汀对伴有无效食管动力的胃食管反流病患者食管运动功能的影响

[目的]观察马来酸曲美布汀对伴有无效食管动力的胃食管反流病患者食管运动功能的影响。[方法]对经内镜、24h食管pH-阻抗监测诊断为胃食管反流病,并行高分辨率食管压力测定(high resolution manometry,HRM),依据芝加哥3.0版标准诊断为无效食管动力的16例患者,给予马来酸曲美布汀0.2g tid、埃索美拉唑20mg、bid治疗2周后复查HRM,比较治疗前后下食管括约肌静息压(LESP)、食管体部各段波幅及时限、吞咽成功率、失蠕动比例、弱蠕动比例以及远端收缩积分(DCI)值等指标的变化。[结果]16例患者治疗前后LESP变化差异无统计学意义(P0.05),在LESP明显降低的7例患者中,与治疗前相比,治疗后LESP明显增加[(1.8±0.9)mmHg(1mmHg=0.133kPa)∶(8.2±5.4)mmHg],差异有统计学意义(P0.05);液体吞咽中,食管中段收缩波幅较治疗前明显增加[(33.7±11.4)mmHg∶(42.7±19.9)mmHg)],P0.05;黏性吞咽中,食管远端收缩波幅较治疗前明显增加[(44.7±18.4)mmHg∶(57.5±23.4)mmHg],P0.05;液体吞咽时,失蠕动比例较治疗前均显著下降,P0.05;液体及黏性吞咽时,DCI值均较治疗前明显增加,P0.05。在液体吞咽时,吞咽成功率较治疗前增加,差异有统计学意义,P0.05。[结论]马来酸曲美布汀可能增加合并下食管括约肌低压的GERD患者的LESP,通过增加食管体部收缩波幅,改善合并无效食管动力的GERD患者食管体部的廓清功能。     

Analysis of clinical features and motility characteristics of ineffective esophageal motility

<正>Objective To clarify the correlation between the clinical characteristics,esophageal motility features and esophageal acid exposure in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).Methods From January 2016to March 2018,at Peking University First Hospital,22 IEM patients diagnosed by esophagus high-resolution     

Habitual rapid food intake and ineffective esophageal motility

AIM:To study non-cardiac chest pain(NCCP) in relation to ineffective esophageal motility(IEM) and rapid food intake.METHODS:NCCP patients with a self-reported habit of fast eating underwent esophageal manometry for the diagnosis of IEM.Telephone interviews identified eating habits of additional IEM patients.Comparison of manometric features was done among IEM patients with and without the habit of rapid food intake and healthy controls.A case study investigated the effect of 6-mo gum chewing on restoration of esophageal motility in an IEM patient.The Valsalva maneuver was performed in IEM patients and healthy controls to assess the compliance of the esophagus in response to abdominal pressureincrease.RESULTS:Although most patients diagnosed with NCCP do not exhibit IEM,remarkably,all 12 NCCP patients who were self-reporting fast eaters with a main complaint of chest pain(75.0%) had contraction amplitudes in the mid and distal esophagus that were significantly lower compared with healthy controls [(23.45 mmHg(95%CI:14.06-32.85)vs 58.80 mmHg(95%CI:42.56-75.04),P < 0.01 and 28.29 mmHg(95%CI:21.77-34.81) vs 50.75 mmHg(95%CI:38.44-63.05),P < 0.01,respectively)].In 7 normal-eating IEM patients with a main complaint of sensation of obstruction(42.9%),the mid amplitude was smaller than in the controls [30.09 mmHg(95%CI:19.48-40.70) vs 58.80 mmHg(95%CI:42.56-75.04),P < 0.05].There was no statistically significant difference in manometric features between the fast-eating and normal-eating groups.One NCCP patient who self-reported fast eating and was subsequently diagnosed with IEM did not improve with proton-pump inhibition but restored swallow-induced contractions upon 6-mo gum-chewing.The Valsalva maneuver caused a markedly reduced pressure rise in the mid and proximal esophagus in the IEM patients.CONCLUSION:Habitual rapid food intake may lead to IEM.A prospective study is needed to validate this hypothesis.Gum-chewing might strengthen weakened esophageal muscles.     

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.     

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.     

无效食管运动在胃食管反流病中发病作用的观察

目的　探讨食管无效收缩 (IEM)在胃食管反流病 (GERD)的发病作用。方法　对GERD病人行食管测压和 2 4h食管pH监测 ,分析IEM在GERD的发生率以及比较IEM与食管酸暴露、酸清除和食管炎的关系。结果　 86例GERD病人中 5 9例 (6 8 6 % )存在非特异性食管动力障碍 (NEMD) ;其中 5 5例 (占 93 2 % )符合IEM诊断标准 ;GERD病的IEM发生率为 6 3 95 %。IEM的GERD患者总的pH <4时间 (% ) (5 91)及立位 (4 4 3)和卧位 (6 92 )pH <4时间 (% )显著大于食管正常蠕动的GERD患者 (分别为 3 16 ,1.6 1,和 4 31) ,尤以卧位明显 (P <0 0 1)。IEM患者平均卧位食管酸清除时间 (EAC)为每次 12 6 3min ,显著长于正常食管动力GERD患者的每次 3 15min(P<0 0 1) ,而立位EAC则与正常食管动力组无差异。 2 7例正常食管动力GERD有 10例 (37% )有糜烂性食管炎 ;5 5例IEM患者有 19例 (35 % )有食管炎 ,二组间食管炎发生比例差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。结论　GERD病的食管动力障碍大多数系IEM。IEM比正常食管动力患者更易发生反流和存在食管酸清除障碍。IEM是GERD病的主要异常表现。     

Effects of mosapride on secondary peristalsis in patients with ineffective esophageal motility

Abstract

Objective. Ineffective esophageal motility is frequently found in patients with gastroesophageal reflux diseases. Secondary peristalsis contributes to esophageal acid clearance. Mosapride improves gastrointestinal (GI) motility by acting on 5-hydroxytrypatamine₄ receptors. The authors aimed to evaluate the effect of mosapride on secondary peristalsis in patients with ineffective esophageal motility. Material and methods. After recording primary peristalsis baseline, secondary peristalsis was stimulated by slowly and rapidly injecting mid-esophageal air in 18 patients. Two separate experiments were randomly performed with 40 mg oral mosapride or placebo. Results. Mosapride had no effect on the threshold volume of secondary peristalsis during slow air distension (9.8 ± 0.97 vs. 10.2 ± 1.0 mL; p = 0.84), but decreased the threshold volume during rapid air distension (4.1 ± 0.2 vs. 4.6 ± 0.3 mL; p = 0.001). The efficiency of secondary peristalsis during rapid air distension increased with mosapride (70% [40–95%]) compared with placebo (60% [10–85%]; p = 0.0003). Mosapride had no effect on the amplitudes of distal pressure wave of secondary peristalsis during slow (94.3 ± 9 vs. 101.9 ± 9.1 mmHg; p = 0.63) or rapid air distension (89.3 ± 9 vs. 95.2 ± 8.3 mmHg; p = 0.24). Conclusions. Mosapride improves esophageal sensitivity of secondary peristalsis by abrupt air distension but has limited effect on the motor properties of secondary peristalsis in ineffective esophageal motility patients. Despite its well-known prokinetic effect, mosapride enhances the efficiency of secondary peristalsis in patients with ineffective esophageal motility through augmenting esophageal sensitivity instead of motility.     

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.