酸反流与胆汁反流在胃食管反流病中的作用

目的探讨酸反流与胆汁反流在胃食管反流病(GERD)中的作用及相互关系.方法46例GERD患者(反流性食管炎组30例,胃镜阴性组16例)及26例健康对照者在完成食管测压后,应用便携式食管pH监测仪及Bilitec2000胆汁反流监测仪,同时进行24h食管内酸及胆汁反流的动态连续监测.结果GERD患者酸反流及胆汁反流各指标均明显高于健康对照者,且与食管炎严重程度一致.pH＜4总时间百分比与胆红素光吸收值(Abs)＞0.14,总时间百分比存在线性相关关系(r=0.34,P＜0.01).酸反流和胆汁反流共存的双重反流在GERD患者中最为常见,且较单纯反流更易引起严重食管炎.结论GERD患者中较为常见的双重反流对食管粘膜的损伤作用强于单纯酸或胆汁的不完全反流,酸反流与胆汁反流间可能有正性协同作用;联合应用胃镜检查及食管内酸和胆汁反流监测将为GERD的诊治提供可靠的客观依据.     

抑酸剂在胃食管反流病中的作用

胃食管反流病(GERD)的病理生理机制是食管抗反流屏障功能低下,胃内容物反流到食管引起病人不适症状与食管黏膜损伤的疾病.目前的研究表明,反流物主要为胃酸.胆汁或非酸反流在引起GERD症状的因素中地位有限.由于无法从根本上纠正引起胃食管反流的病理生理机制,目前的治疗措施主要集中在减少胃酸反流上.抑制胃酸的药物包括H2受体拮抗剂(H2RA)和质子泵抑制剂(PPI).     

胃十二指肠混合反流在食管黏膜损伤中的作用

胃食管反流病 (GERD)临床常见。研究表明 ,近 5 0 %有反流症状的患者有食管黏膜损伤即反流性食管炎 (RE)。胃酸能导致食管炎 ,但十二指肠胃食管反流 (DGER)在食管黏膜损伤中的作用尚存有争议[1] 。本文对有典型胃食管反流症状伴食管黏膜损伤和无食管黏膜损伤的患者进行同步食管 2 4hpH及胆汁监测。旨在了解混合反流在食管黏膜损伤中的作用。一、对象与方法1.对象 :正常对照组 10例 ,无任何胃食管反流症状 ,上消化道内镜检查无异常发现。 4 3例有典型胃食管反流症状(烧心或反食或两者并存 )患者 ,根据内镜检查结果和LA内镜下食管炎的分…     

食管pH和胆汁监测用于十二指肠胃食管反流的诊断及对治疗的评价

目的探讨十二指肠胃食管反流(DGER)的诊断方法和胆汁反流在胃食管反流病(GERD)中的临床意义.方法用便携式pH监测仪及胆红素监测仪(Bilitec 2000)对20例健康人及52例有烧心、反酸等症状的患者行24 h食管腔内pH和胆红素同步监测,以光吸收值≥0.14作为发生胆汁反流的阈值,计算24 h反流总时间%等指标.并对15例酸和胆汁混合反流者用铝碳酸镁加西沙必利治疗4周,然后复查两项监测.结果20例健康人中未发现病理性酸反流,52例患者中有47例(包括食管炎12例)存在病理性酸反流,诊为GERD.胆汁反流总时间%在健康人组及反流症状组分别为(0.47±0.71)%及(2.67±3.23)%(P＜0.05),在食管炎及非食管炎者分别为(5.41±4.93)%及(1.68±1.76)%(P＜0.05).47例GERD中15例(32%)为酸及胆汁混合反流,另32例为单纯酸反流,前者有食管炎8例而后者仅为4例(P＜0.05).15例混合反流经治疗后酸和胆汁反流总时间%均明显降低,8例食管炎中有7例炎症消退,1例减轻.结论Bilitec 2000是评价DGER的有用工具,32%的GERD存在酸和胆汁混合反流;胆汁反流在GERD食管黏膜损害中起重要作用.     

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.     

莫沙必利治疗胃食管反流病的随机、双盲、安慰剂交叉对照研究

目前对促胃肠动力药莫沙必利改善中国汉族胃食管反流病（GERD）患者胃食管反流症状和食管运动障碍的作用尚缺乏系统观察。目的：观察莫沙必利对中国汉族人群中GERD患者的治疗作用。方法：采用随机、双盲、安慰剂交叉对照研究设计，选取有典型胃食管反流症状的GERD患者23例行胃食管反流症状评估、食管测压以及24h食管DH和胆红素联合监测，对比研究莫沙必利和安慰剂各1周交叉治疗对胃食管反流症状的改善情况，以及对食管运动功能和胃食管反流事件的影响。结果：与安慰剂治疗相比，莫沙必利治疗可降低胃食管反流总症状积分，加快食管体部蠕动波传导速度，增加湿咽成功率，减少食管下端pH〈4总反流次数和长时间（≥5min）反流次数，降低pH〈4总时间百分比和DeMeester计分，降低食管下端胆汁反流总时间百分比，差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：莫沙必利治疗1周可有效改善本组中国汉族GERD患者的胃食管反流症状，部分改善食管运动障碍以及酸反流和胆汁反流．是治疗GERD安全、有效的药物。     

弱酸反流与难治性胃食管反流病

目前把质子泵抑制剂治疗失败的胃食管反流病(GERD)称为难治性GERD,它是消化内科目前的治疗难题之一.近年的研究发现,弱酸反流、混合型胆汁反流以及食管高敏感可能是难治性GERD的发病机制,此文就近年来有关弱酸反流与难治性GERD的定义、发生率、发生机制以及治疗等方面作一综述.     

胃内胆汁反流相关因素的研究

胆汁和十二指肠其他内容物的反流和幽门螺杆菌 (Hp)感染等是上消化道黏膜炎症、溃疡乃至肿瘤的重要病因。胃部分切除术后 ,胃肠解剖结构的改变使十二指肠 胃反流危险增加 ,是残胃炎、残胃癌等的发病机制之一[1,2 ] 。然而 ,无手术史病人胃内胆汁反流的研究报道则较少 ,这些病人中胆汁反流与上消化道症状、Hp感染、胃内 pH值以及胃 食管反流病 (GERD)等的关系尚不尽明确。本研究通过胃内pH值和胆汁反流联合动态监测探讨无手术史病人的胃内胆汁反流与上消化道症状、GERD、胃内 pH值等的关系 ,以期加深对胃内胆汁反流的病理生理学机制的…     

原发性胆汁反流性胃炎与胃食管反流病的关系

目的:探讨原发性胆汁反流性胃炎(primary bile reflux gastritis,PBRG)与胃食管反流病(gastroesophageal reflux disease,GERD)之间的相关性.方法:选取我院确诊为PBRG的患者1060例为观察组,无痛胃镜下未查见有PBRG的体检者1060例为对照组,比较两组GERD的发生率;依据内镜下PBRG的诊断标准,将260例PBRG伴有GERD的患者分为轻度、中度及重度3组,对比各组食管黏膜损伤的程度以及GERD症状积分的分布.结果:PBRG组GERD的发生率高于对照组(24.5%vs9.8%,P<0.05).食管黏膜损伤程度加深的发生率随着PBRG程度的加重而增加.PBRG的程度与GERD症状分级无相关性.结论:PBRG与反流性食管炎(refluxe sophagitis,RE)形成存在正性相关,PBRG并非是引起GERD症状的主要原因.     

胃食管反流病的外科治疗

胃食管反流病(GERD)包括由病理性胃食管反流引起的反流性食管炎及并发症(食管狭窄、短食管、Barrett食管、哮喘、吸入性肺炎和反流性咽喉炎等)。GERD发病是多因素的，正常情况下，食管胃连接部存在抗反流屏障，可阻止胃内容物进笔食管。抗反流屏障损害、胃排空和食管酸廓清功能障碍是引发GERD的病理机制。     

Importance of duodeno-gastro-esophageal reflux in the medical outpatient practice

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The role of acid and duodeno-gastro-esophageal reflux (DGER), also termed bile reflux, in esophageal mucosal injury is controversial. Several recent developments, especially availability of the recent bilirubin monitoring device (Bilitec), have resulted in clarifications in this area. In order to better understand the role of acid and DGER in esophageal mucosal injury, we summarized the recent publications in this area. METHODOLOGY: Review of published medical literature (MEDLINE) on the clinical consequence of esophageal exposure to gastric acid or DGER. RESULTS: Recent data suggest that esophageal pH monitoring and pH > 7 is a poor marker for reflux of duodenal contents into the esophagus. DGER in non-acidic environments (i.e., partial gastrectomy patients) may cause symptoms but does not cause esophageal mucosal injury. Acid and duodenal contents usually reflux into the esophagus simultaneously, and may be contributing to the development of Barrett's metaplasia and possibly adenocarcinoma. Proton pump inhibitors decrease acid and DGER by reducing intragastric volume available for reflux and raising intragastric pH. The promotility agent cisapride decreases DGER by increasing LES pressure and improving gastric emptying. CONCLUSIONS: 1) The term "alkaline reflux" is a misnormer and should no longer be used in referring to reflux of duodenal contents. 2) Bilitec is the method of choice in detecting DGER and should always be used simultaneously with esophageal pH-monitoring for acid reflux. 3) DGER alone is not injurious to esophageal mucosa, but can result in significant esophageal mucosal injury when combined with acid reflux. 4) Therefore, controlling esophageal exposure to acid reflux by using proton pump inhibitors also eliminates the potentially damaging effect of DGER.     

Duodenogastroesophageal reflux: results of medical treatment and antireflux surgery

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recent studies have shown that reflux of the duodenal content to the esophagus plays an important role in esophageal mucosal damage. The aim of the study is to compare the duodenogastroesophageal (DGER) reflux with the severity of reflux esophagitis and evaluate its response to either medical and/or antireflux surgery. METHODOLOGY: Ninety-six patients with DGER were subjected to thorough history, upper GI endoscopy, barium study, esophageal manometry and 24-hr esophageal pH metry combined with Bilitec 2000. Medical treatment was given for all, while Nissen fundoplication was done for 28 patients. All patients were evaluated after Nissen fundoplication and treatment. RESULTS: The age of studied patients was 36.26+/-12.7 years with male to female ratio 2:1. The chief symptom was heartburn in 73 (76%) patients. Upper GI endoscopy revealed, 30 (31.2%) patients had grade I reflux, 30 (31.2%) patients had grade II reflux, 7 patients had grade III reflux, 5 patients had grade VI reflux, Barrett's esophagus in 14 patients (14.5%), hiatus hernia (HH) in 26 (27%) patients. Barium study revealed that, 40 (41.6%) patients had evidence of reflux, while 34 (35.4%) patients had reflux with HH. Esophageal motility revealed the mean LESP (12.7+/-7.6), 68 patients (70.8%) had normotensive body while ineffective esophageal body motility was encountered in 28 (29.1%) patients. Esophageal 24-hr pH study and Bilitec 2000 revealed that 54 (56.2%) patients had bile reflux with pathological acid reflux, while 42 (43.7%) patients had bile reflux in alkaline pH. Medical treatment gave excellent to good response in 68 (70.8%) patients, while Nissen fundoplication was done for 28 (29.2%) patients. Endoscopic examination 6 months after Nissen fundoplication showed marked improvement in endoscopic injury. Barium study after Nissen fundoplication revealed repair of HH and control of GERD in all patients except one. Esophageal motility, 24 hr pH study and Bilitec 2000, after 6 months of Nissen shows high significant increase in LESP, decrease in acid and bile reflux. No significant difference between open or laparoscopic fundoplication in LESP, acid and bile reflux. CONCLUSIONS: DGER in acid medium is more injurious to the esophagus than DGER in alkaline pH. The severity of esophageal injury does not correlate with the severity of acid or bile reflux but has a direct correlation with impaired distal esophageal motility. Medical treatment gives satisfactory control of symptoms and healing of esophageal lesion in 70% of DGER. The response to medical treatment does not depend on the severity of esophageal injury but depends on the severity of bile and acid reflux. Nissen fundoplication in refractory patients, either open or laparoscopic, was effective in control of heartburn in 95% of patients contrary to 50% in mixed symptoms.     

Esophageal pH and bile monitoring for detecting duodenogastroesophageal reflux and evaluating the effectiveness of treatment

OBJECTIVE: To study methods of diagnosing duo­denogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) and to evaluate the role of bile reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Simultaneous 24‐h esophageal mucosal bilirubin level and pH monitoring were performed in 20 healthy subjects and 52 patients with symptoms suggesting gastroesophageal reflux. Data were gathered by using an ambulatory duodenogastric reflux monitoring system (Bilitec 2000) and an ambulatory pH recorder (Digitrapper MKIII). An absorbance value of ≥0.14 was designated as the threshold value for the presence of bile reflux. Patients suffering from mixed pathological reflux of acid and bile were treated with hydrotalcite and cisapride for 4 weeks, then the monitoring was repeated. RESULTS: No pathological acid reflux was found in the 20 healthy subjects. Based on findings from 24‐h esophageal pH monitoring, 47 of 52 patients (including 12 with esophagitis) were found to have patho­logical reflux. The total fraction of time with bile reflux was greater in the patients (n = 52) than in the healthy subjects (n = 20; 2.67 ± 3.23%vs 0.47 ± 0.71%; P < 0.05) and was greater in the patients with esophagitis (n = 12) than in the patients without esophagitis (n = 35; 5.41 ± 4.93%vs 1.68 ± 1.76%; P < 0.05). Of the 47 patients with GERD, 15 (32%) had abnormal mixed acid and bile reflux. Eight of the 15 patients with esophagitis were found to have mixed reflux and only four of 32 had acid reflux only (P < 0.05). After treatment with hydrotalcite and cisapride, the total fraction of time with acid and bile reflux in the 15 patients with mixed reflux decreased significantly (P < 0.05). Esophagitis was cured in seven of eight patients. CONCLUSION: The ambulatory duodenogastric reflux monitoring system is a useful tool for detecting DGER and evaluating the efficacy of treatment. Approximately 32% (15/47 cases) of patients with GERD were found to have DGER. Bile reflux may play a significant role in causing esophageal mucosal damage in patients suffering from GERD.     

Comparison of gastroesophageal reflux in 100 patients with or without prior gastroesophageal surgery

Background and purpose  The role of duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains controversial. Few studies of reflux have compared patients with an intact stomach to those without intact stomach after gastroesophageal surgery. This study aimed to investigate differences of the refluxate between patients with and without prior gastroesophageal surgery and to assess the role of DGER in GERD. Methods  One hundred patients (34% with reflux symptoms) were divided into four groups: 23 with an intact stomach, and 27, 42, and 8 with esophagectomy followed by gastric tube reconstruction, distal gastrectomy, and total gastrectomy, respectively. Reflux symptoms were evaluated, and endoscopy and simultaneous 24-h monitoring of esophageal pH and bilirubin were performed. Results  Of 44 patients with increased DGER but without increased acid reflux, three had severe reflux esophagitis and seven had Barrett’s esophagus. DGER was most frequent under weakly acidic conditions in the intact stomach, esophagectomy, and distal gastrectomy groups. Pure acid reflux and DGER at any pH were elevated in GERD patients with an intact stomach, while weakly acidic and alkaline DGER were elevated in GERD patients after gastrectomy. Esophagectomy patients had reflux with the combined characteristics of those in the intact stomach and gastrectomy groups. Weakly acidic or alkaline DGER was correlated with symptoms and esophageal mucosal changes in gastrectomy patients. Conclusion  The refluxate causing GERD differed between patients with and without prior gastroesophageal surgery. Weakly acidic or alkaline DGER may cause both symptoms and esophageal mucosal damage.     

Bile and acid reflux in long and short segment Barrett's esophagus, and in reflux disease

Gastroesophageal acid reflux (GER) is the primary risk factor for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In long segment Barrett's esophagus (LSBE) duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) parallels acid reflux. The role of GER and DGER in short segment Barrett's esophagus (SSBE) remains to be determined. The aim of the present prospective study was to investigate the esophageal bile and acid reflux in patients with LSBE, SSBE and patients with GERD. Three groups of patients were studied: Patients with LSBE (n = 12), SSBE (n = 20) and patients with GERD without intestinal metaplasia (n = 33). Subjects underwent esophageal manometry and simultaneous 24-h pH and bile monitoring (Bilitec 2000). The thresholds for GER and DGER were a deMeester score > 14.7 and an absorbance value > 0.2 for 10.9% of total period, respectively. GER did not differ between the groups (p > 0.05). However, DGER differed between patients with LSBE, SSBE and GERD (14.7 vs 2.1 vs 2.1, respectively; p < 0.05). H. pylori status did not influence GER and DGER significantly. In contrast to patients with LSBE the DGER does not seem to play an important role in patients with SSBE and patients with GERD. This result indicates a different etiopathology of both long and short segment Barrett's esophagus.     

Role of duodenogastroesophageal reflux in the pathogenesis of esophageal mucosal injury and gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) usually suffer from acid reflux and duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) simultaneously. The question of whether DGER has an important effect on the development of GERD remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of DGER in the pathogenesis of GERD and its value for the diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). METHODS: GERD was initially diagnosed using the reflux disease questionnaire. For further diagnosis, results of the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (excluding a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus) were considered in conjunction with simultaneous 24 h esophageal pH and bilirubin monitoring. RESULTS: According to endoscopic findings, 95 patients (43 men, 50+/-10 years of age) were divided into two groups: the reflux esophagitis (RE) group (n=51) and the NERD group (n=44). Three DGER parameters, the percentage of time with absorbance greater than 0.14, the total number of reflux episodes and the number of bile reflux episodes lasting longer than 5 min, were evaluated in the study. For the RE group, the values of the DGER parameters (19.05%+/-23.44%, 30.56+/-34.04 and 5.90+/-6.37, respectively) were significantly higher than those of the NERD group (7.26%+/-11.08%, 15.68+/-20.92 and 2.59+/-3.57, respectively, P<0.05 for all) but no significant difference was found in acid reflux. Of NERD patients, 18.5% were diagnosed with simple DGER. The positive diagnosis rate of NERD could be significantly elevated from 65.9% to 84.1% (P<0.05), if bilirubin monitoring was employed in diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: DGER may occur independently but plays an important role in the development of RE and GERD symptoms. Simultaneous 24 h esophageal pH and bilirubin monitoring is superior to simple pH monitoring in helping identify patients at risk for NERD.     

Acid and bile reflux in erosive reflux disease, non-erosive reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may occur with acid, bile or in a mixed form. Endoscopic injury and mucosal metaplasia are a known sequlae to pathological GERD. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of acid and duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) to endoscopic severity in patients with GERD and Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: Ninety-one patients complaining of reflux symptoms were studied with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and graded to non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), erosive reflux disease (ERD) and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Esophageal manometry and simultaneous ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH and bilirubin monitoring (Bilitec 2000) were done to all patients. RESULTS: Seventy one patients (78.0%) had ERD (Savary-Miller (grade I-III), 11 patients (12.1%) had NERD and 9 patients (9.9%) had BE suspected endoscopically and diagnosed by histological esophageal biopsy. Combined 24-h esophageal bilirubin and pH monitoring revealed that 39 patients (42.9%) had mixed acid and bile reflux, 16 (17.6%) had pathological acid reflux only, 18 (19.8%) had bile reflux only and 18 patients (19.8%) had no evidence of abnormal reflux. The percentage of the total time of bilirubin absorbance above 0.14, in 71 patients with ERD was (8.18 +/- 11.28%), and in 9 patients with BE was (15.48 +/- 30.48%) which was significantly greater than that in 11 patients with NERD (4.48 +/- 8.99%), p < 0.05 and p = 0.01 respectively. All BE patients had abnormal esophageal bile reflux (3 bile alone and 6 mixed bile and acid); 44 of 71 patients (61.97%) with ERD had abnormal esophageal bile reflux (13 bile alone and 31 mixed bile and acid); meanwhile 15 of them (21.2%) had abnormal acid exposure alone. Of the 11 patients with NERD, 4 patients (36.4%) had abnormal esophageal bile reflux, 2 of them mixed with acid. CONCLUSIONS: The Bilitec method reliably identifies the presence of bilirubin and quantitatively detects duodenogastroesophageal reflux of bile. Mixed reflux (acid and bile) is the chief pattern of reflux in GERD patients in this study. Bile reflux either alone or mixed with acid reflux contributes to the severity of erosive and non-erosive reflux disease as well as to Barrett's esophagus.     

十二指肠胃食管反流在胃食管反流病中的作用

目的　研究十二指肠胃食管反流 (DGER)在胃食管反流病发病机制中的作用及其对非糜烂性反流病 (NERD)的诊断价值。方法　 95例患者根据内镜检查的结果分为反流性食管炎和NERD组 ,对其均进行 2 4h食管 pH和胆汁联合监测。 结果　反流性食管炎患者DGER的各项指标 :吸光度值 >0 14时间百分比 (% )、总反流次数和反流 >5min的次数分别为 19 0 5± 2 3 4 4、30 5 6±34 0 4和 5 90± 6 37,均显著高于NERD组相应的 7 2 6± 11 0 8、15 6 8± 2 0 92和 2 5 9± 3 5 7(P <0 0 5 ) ,而酸反流差异无显著性 ,随着反流性食管炎的程度加重DGER发生率增高 ;18 2 %的NERD患者存在单纯DGER ,联合胆汁监测可使NERD诊断阳性率由 6 5 9%升高到 84 1%。结论　DGER可以单独发生 ,在引起反流性食管黏膜损伤或症状方面都有作用 ,2 4h食管 pH和胆汁联合监测有助于NERD的诊断。     

Validation of a new method of measuring esophageal acid exposure: comparison with 24-hour pH monitoring

Recently, we developed a disposable acid exposure sensor whose in vitro response to acid below pH 4 is linearly determined by the duration of exposure and the degree of acidity. The aim of the present study was to compare the SR to simultaneous esophageal pH and duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) monitoring (Bilitec) in patients investigated for presumed gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Twenty-six patients (16 men, mean age 46 ± 2 years) with symptoms suggestive of GERD underwent 24-hr ambulatory pH monitoring and SR monitoring at 5 cm proximal to the LES. DGER monitoring was performed in 21 patients. Exposure of the esophagus to acid and to DGER were analyzed. These data were compared to SR. A significant correlation was found between the exposure of the distal esophagus to acid and SR (R = 0.85; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the area below a cutoff pH 4 was significantly correlated to SR (r = 0.81; P < 0.0001). SR was not correlated to DGER (r = 0.16; NS). At a cutoff of 50, the sensitivity and specificity of SR to predict esophageal acid exposure >5% of time were 91% and 93%, respectively conclusion, the response of the acid exposure sensor is strongly correlated with the results of simultaneous esophageal pH monitoring. The sensor seems able to reliably predict pathological esophageal acid exposure. These findings warrant larger studies of the clinical potential of the acid exposure sensor in the diagnosis and quantification of GERD.