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.     

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。     

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.     

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     

合并食管外症状的难治性胃食管反流病的临床研究

选取51例难治性GERD患者,分析合并食管外症状和典型反流症状的难治性GERD患者的高分辨率食管测压和24 h pH-阻抗监测数据。结果显示合并食管外症状组弱酸反流事件发生率(41.0%,16/39)高于典型反流症状组(9/12),差异有统计学意义(χ^2=4.238,P=0.040);而两组酸反流、长反流、非酸反流和食管动力之间差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。弱酸反流可能是合并食管外症状难治性GERD的重要发病机制。     

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...     

老年人胃食管反流病的临床特点

目的探讨老年人胃食管反流病(GERD)患者的症状、胃镜及24 h食管pH监测的特点。方法回顾性分析该院2011年3月至2013年3月就诊资料完整的老年人30例和非老年人40例GERD患者的临床特点。结果老年组典型反酸、胃烧灼积分低于非老年组(P<0.05);老年组食管外症状发生率高于非老年组(P<0.05);老年组重度食管炎比例高于非老年组(P<0.05);老年组24 h食管pH监测结果中pH<4的总时间百分比、pH<4的卧位总时间百分比、反流持续≥5 min次数、最长反流持续时间高于非老年组(P<0.05)。结论老年人典型胃烧灼、反酸症状少见,但食管外症状发生率较高,胃镜下食管黏膜损害程度较重,24 h食管pH监测食管酸暴露程度较高。     

食管内酸、胆盐监测及内镜检查对胃食管反流病的诊治意义

目的探索胃食管反流病(GERD)的合理治疗方案.方法应用24 h食管内胆红素与pH监测,对110例有GERD症状的患者检测24 h食管内胆汁反流情况及pH动态变化,结合内镜检查来综合分析.结果根据24 h食管内酸和胆红素监测的结果,以内镜检查有无黏膜病变而分成两组.内镜检查阳性组25例(22.7%)均有酸(碱)病理性反流;内镜检查阴性组85例(77.3%),其中73例有酸(碱)病理性反流,另12例(10.9%)反流在生理范围内.内镜检查阳性组与阴性组有反流者相比,差异无显著性(P＞0.05),但内镜检查阳性组和阴性组有反流者与内镜阴性且反流在生理范围者相比均差异有显著性(P＜0.05).结论根据24 h食管内监测及内镜检查结果,显示89%GERD均有酸(碱)病理性反流,酸(碱)反流是导致临床症状和食管黏膜损伤的主要攻击因子,削弱或消除反流是GERD治疗的关键.GERD易复发,需长期维持治疗,应特别注意药效、不良反应和经济学问题.     

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.     

Ineffective motility is not a marker for gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have suggested that ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) may be a marker for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), particularly supraesophageal reflux disease. We evaluated the relationship between esophageal acid exposure and esophageal body motility in patients undergoing both esophageal manometry and 24-h pH metry in the absence of antisecretory therapy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database review of 84 patients (mean age 47 yr, 46% male) evaluated in our GI physiology laboratory. The indication for testing was recorded and characterized as esophageal or supraesophageal. Abnormal esophageal acid exposure was defined as a distal esophageal pH <4 for more than 4.2% of the total monitoring time (>6.3% upright, >1.2% supine) or a proximal esophageal acid exposure time of greater than 1.1% total (>1.3% upright, 0% supine). IEM was defined as more than two of 10 ineffective peristaltic waves. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients had esophageal-presenting symptoms, and 12 had supraesophageal symptoms. The prevalence of abnormal esophageal acid exposure was similar in patients with esophageal and supraesophageal symptoms (69% vs 92%, p = 0.17). Abnormal motility was identified in 26 patients (31%). IEM was the most common motility disturbance (77%, 20 patients). The frequency of motility disorders was similar in patients with and without abnormal esophageal acid exposure (30% vs 35%, p = 0.79), in patients with esophageal or supraesophageal symptoms (32% vs 25%, p = 0.75, for all patients; 30% vs 27%, p = 1.00, for patients with abnormal esophageal acid exposure), and among upright, supine, and combined refluxers (33%, 9%, and 35%, p = 0.26).CONCLUSIONS: IEM does not stand alone as a significant marker for the presence of GERD in general or supraesophageal reflux disease in particular.     

Prevalence of ineffective esophageal motility and its relevance to symptoms and esophageal acid exposure in korean patients referred for foregut symptoms

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The prevalence and clinical significance of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) in a population with low prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease are not known. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence and its relevance to symptoms and esophageal acid exposure in Korean patients referred for foregut symptoms. METHODS: A total of 112 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal manometry, 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and endoscopy for foregut symptoms were analyzed. IEM was defined as >20% of wet swallows with amplitudes of <30 mm Hg or lack of peristalsis. RESULTS: IEM and abnormal acid exposure were observed in respectively 29 and 19% of all subjects. The prevalence of individual symptoms did not differ between IEM and non-IEM groups. Hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter (LES) was significantly more prevalent in IEM patients. The prevalence of abnormal acid exposure in IEM and non-IEM groups was comparable. The prevalence of IEM was similar between patients with and without abnormal acid exposure. Erosive reflux esophagitis was significantly more prevalent in IEM patients compared with non-IEM patients. CONCLUSION: IEM is not a significant marker for a specific symptom or abnormal acid exposure. However, the presence of IEM is associated with a higher prevalence of hypotensive LES and erosive reflux esophagitis.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

Pathological bolus exposure may define gastro-esophageal reflux better than pathological Acid exposure in patients with globus

Background/Aims: Conventionally, pathological acid exposure (PAE), defined by acid reflux only, is used to identify gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, weak acid reflux or non-acid reflux also induces reflux symptoms. Defining abnormal reflux based on all reflux episodes may better identify GERD and would be more useful among patients with atypical GERD symptoms, such as globus. Methodology: Impedance-pHmetry results of 31 globus patients, off acid suppressants, were analysed. Results: A median of 24 episodes of reflux were observed. Of the reflux episodes, 54% were non-acid reflux and 50% reached the proximal extent. PAE was observed in 6 patients (19%). For 5 patients (16%) without PAE, there was evidence of increased bolus exposure compared to normal controls (an intraesophageal bolus exposure for more than 1.4% of the recording time, defined as pathological bolus exposure, PBE). When GERD was defined by PAE or esophagitis, the prevalence of GERD was 29%. When GERD was defined by PBE, PAE or esophagitis, the prevalence was 42%. PBE identified 13% of the patients who otherwise would have been missed. Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients without PAE had evidence of PBE. PBE may be a more useful definition for identifying patients with abnormal increase in reflux in patients with globus. Further studies are warranted.     

Prevalence of respiratory symptoms and diseases associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease

AIM: Investigation of the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and diseases associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 299 subjects with GERD were submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and a symptom analysis. RESULTS: Chronic respiratory symptoms or diseases were present in 18% (56/299). Chronic cough was observed in 42/56 patients, while typical reflux symptoms such as heartburn and acid regurgitation were observed in 30/56 and 24/56 cases, respectively. The prevalence of airway diseases was chronic bronchitis 12/56, asthma 10/56, recurrent pneumonia 10/56, chronic sinusitis 7/56 and chronic laryngitis 1/56. In patients with respiratory complications pathologic acid reflux was established in 29/51 cases on the basis of the DeMeester score, while 17/51 had pathologic postprandial, nocturnal or diurnal reflux events. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed a normal esophageal mucosa in 6/56, Savary-Miller stage I esophagitis in 23/56, stage II in 15/56, stage III in 5/56 and stage IV in 6/56 patients. CONCLUSIONS: These investigations have demonstrated an abnormal 24-hour pH score in about half of the patients with GERD-associated respiratory complications, and indicated that short reflux events are characteristic of the reflux activity in one third of this population.