Five-year audit of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH-manometry in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal function testing was developed to aid diagnosis in patients with negative endoscopy. Although combined 24-h esophageal pH-manometry is now commercially available, its routine clinical effectiveness has not yet been studied. METHODS: From 1992 to 1996 we evaluated 303 consecutive patients who were first-time referrals to our unit for 24-h esophageal pH-manometry. The referral indications were gastroesophageal reflux disease, 47.2%; dysphagia, 18.5%; non-cardiac chest pain, 14.9%; connective tissue disease, 13.2%; and symptomatic patients after antireflux surgery, 6.3%. RESULTS: Overall, esophageal function testing altered the diagnosis of 44% of the patients, confirmed it in 38%, and specifically changed the management of 66%. The final clinical 'diagnosis' was reflux disease, 54% (32% with non-specific esophageal motility disorder); connective tissue disease, 9.9%; achalasia, 9.6%; other specific esophageal motility disorders, 3.3%; non-specific esophageal motility disorders, 6.9%; and normal, 16.2%. The cost per testing was estimated to be US$305 and per change in management US$465. CONCLUSION: Combined 24-h pH-manometry has been shown to be a useful and cost-effective test for the management of selected patients in whom the primary investigation was insufficient.     

Diagnosis of chest pain with foregut symptoms in Chinese patients

AIM： To evaluate the diagnosis of chest pain with foregut symptoms in Chinese patients.
METHODS： Esophageal manometric studies, 24-h introesophageal pH monitoring and 24-h electrocardiograms （Holter electrocardiography） were performed in 61 patients with chest pain.
RESULTS： Thirty-nine patients were diagnosed with non-specific esophageal motility disorders （29 patients with abnormal gastroesophageal reflux and eight patients with myocardial ischemia）. Five patients had diffuse spasm of the esophagus plus abnormal gastroesophageal reflux （two patients had concomitant myocardial ischemia）, and one patient was diagnosed with nutcracker esophagus.
CONCLUSION： The esophageal manometric studies, 24-h intra-esophageal pH monitoring and Holter electrocardiography are significant for the differential diagnosis of chest pain, particularly in patients with foregut symptoms. In cases of esophageal motility disorders, pathological gastroesophageal reflux may be a major cause of chest pain with non-specific esophageal motility disorders. Spasm of the esophageal smooth muscle might affect the heart-coronary smooth muscle, leading to myocardial ischemia.     

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.     

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.     

Clinical usefulness of subgrouping of patients with non-cardiac chest pain according to characteristic symptoms in Korea

BACKGROUND: Non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP) is a heterogeneous disorder. There is controversy about the associations between symptoms and causes in NCCP patients. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of subgrouping according to characteristic symptoms in NCCP patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were classified into two groups, as patients with typical reflux symptoms (group I, n = 24) and those without typical reflux symptoms (group II, n = 34). They underwent upper endoscopy, manometry, and 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. RESULTS: Twenty-four (41%) of the patients were diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) at upper endoscopy or 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. Eleven (19%) were diagnosed with GERD-associated esophageal motility disorder and 13 (22%) were diagnosed with non-GERD-associated esophageal motility disorder. The two groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, weight, smoking history, history of chronic alcoholism, or the severity, duration and frequency of symptoms. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio of group I for GERD-related NCCP were significantly higher than those of group II. Group I had a higher proportion of patients with GERD-associated esophageal motility disorder (55%) than non-GERD-associated esophageal motility disorder (23%). CONCLUSION: Typical reflux symptoms can be used to distinguish patients with GERD-related NCCP from patients with NCCP, and subgrouping according to characteristic symptoms may assist the diagnosis of these patients in Korea.     

Esophageal motility and 24-h pH profiles of patients with heterotopic gastric mucosa in the cervical esophagus

BackgroundHeterotopic gastric mucosa occurs as a flat island of red mucosa in the proximal third of the esophagus where it gives rise to the cervical inlet patch. The aims of this study were to investigate the esophageal motility pattern and 24-h pH profiles of patients with cervical inlet patch.MethodsThirty patients (16 women, mean age: 44.9 years, range: 23–72) diagnosed as having heterotopic gastric mucosa in the cervical esophagus with upper gastrointestinal symptoms had undergone esophageal motility testing and 24-h pH monitorisation with a double-channel pH probe.ResultsManometric investigation was abnormal in 7 patients (non-specific esophageal motor disorder in 4 patients, esophageal hypomotility in 1 patient, and hypotensive LES in 2 patients). Pathological acid reflux (pH < 4) was found in 9 (30%) of 30 heterotopic gastric mucosa patients during pH monitorisation from the distal probe. Pathological acid reflux in the proximal esophagus (percentage of total time of pH < 4) was seen in four of these nine patients. Only four of the 30 patients (13.3%) presented with “acid independent episodes” during the 24-h esophageal pH monitorisation.ConclusionManometric investigation and 24-h pH monitorisation revealed that some of the patients with HGM have signs of esophageal motor dysfunction and “acid independent episodes” from the patches. These abnormalities may be responsible for some of the symptoms of HGM patients.     

Nonobstructive Dysphagia in Reflux Esophagitis

Dysphagia in the absence of organic esophageal stricture may occur in patients with reflux esophagitis. Although the exact mechanism of this "nonobstructive dysphagia" (NOD) is not known, it is believed to be related to transient segmental esophageal motor disorder. The goals of this study were to determine the frequency of NOD in patients with reflux esophagitis and correlate it with esophageal pH and motility changes. Sixty-three consecutive patients with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction were studied with endoscopy, infusion esophageal manometry, and 24-h ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring. Forty-seven had severe erosive esophagitis unresponsive to medical therapy; 16 with esophageal motility disorders were used as symptomatic controls. Twenty-eight of 63 patients studied experienced NOD during the 24-h pH study; 22 had esophagitis and six had esophageal dysmotility without esophagitis. NOD was noted with similar frequency in the two groups; 22/47 (46.8%) of patients with esophagitis and 6/16 (37.5%) with esophageal dysmotility experienced NOD during the period of study. NOD correlated with pH less than 4.0 in 88.6% of patients with esophagitis but in only 7% of patients with esophageal dysmotility (p less than 0.001). There was no difference in acid reflux patterns in esophagitis patients who experienced NOD (22/47), and in those who did not (25/47). There was no correlation between NOD and baseline esophageal motility abnormalities. In summary, 1) NOD is a common, intermittent symptom that occurred in up to 46.8% of esophagitis patients and 37.5% of symptomatic controls during the 24-h period of this study; 2) NOD correlates with esophageal pH less than 4.0 in patients with esophagitis and not in patients with esophageal dysmotility. These data strongly suggest that acid in the distal esophagus frequently triggers the sensation of dysphagia in esophagitis patients, but not in patients with esophageal motility disorders. Combined ambulatory intraesophageal motility and pH monitoring may further elucidate the mechanism of dysphagia in these patients.     

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.     

Esophageal Motility in Nonacid Reflux Compared with Acid Reflux

Esophageal motility has been well studied in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and acid reflux, but not in nonacid reflux. Consecutive patients who had both 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) and esophageal motility tests for suspected GERD were studied. Patients were grouped into nonacid refluxers, acid refluxers, and nonrefluxers based on positive symptom correlation and objective findings of acid reflux. Of 96 patients enrolled, 21 patients (22%) were nonacid refluxers, 44 patients (46%) were acid refluxers, and 31 patients (32%) had no objective evidence of reflux. Normal motility was recorded in 86% of nonacid refluxers, 71% of acid refluxers, and 60% of nonrefluxers. Ineffective esophageal motility was seen in 24% of acid refluxers, and 5% of nonacid refluxers (P = 0.11). Symptomatic nonacid reflux events comprised 22% of patients studied for GERD symptoms by MII-pH. Esophageal motility in nonacid reflux is normal 86% of the time.     

胃食管反流病患者酸反流与食管运动功能障碍的关系

背景：异常酸反流和食管运动功能障碍与胃食管反流病（GERD）密切相关。目的：研究GERD患者的食管运动和酸反流与食管黏膜损害的关系，以及两者之间的相关性。方法：选取有反酸、烧心、胸痛等典型胃食管反流症状的患者72例行上消化道内镜检查、食管测压和24hpH监测。根据pH〈4总时间百分比〈4．5％且DeMeester计分〈14．7的标准。将食管炎患者分为生理性酸反流组（pH^-组）和病理性酸反流组（pH^＋组）。结果：内镜下食管炎组24hpH监测各项指标较无食管炎组显著增高（P〈0．05），病理性酸反流的发生率显著高于无食管炎组（P〈0．01）。两组食管测压各项指标无显著差异，食管炎组pH^＋者的食管下括约肌压力（LESP）较pH^-者显著降低，食管体部蠕动波传导速度减慢，湿咽成功率减少（P〈0．05）。结论：GERD患者食管炎的发生与酸反流密切相关，有病理性酸反流的GERD患者易见食管运动功能障碍。     

Esophageal body length, lower esophageal sphincter length, position and pressure in health and disease

We compared esophageal dimensions in control subjects and patients with differing motility disorders and severities of reflux disease. Patients (1108) and healthy controls (36) underwent manometry and 24-h pH monitoring. Subjects were grouped according to pH and manometry data into seven groups. Mean (s.e.m.) esophageal body length is greatest in achalasia [22.41 (0.27) cm] and least in reflux disease [20.06 (0.13) cm, p < 0.05]. Lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure is greatest in achalasia [17.46 (1.06) mmHg] and least in reflux disease [6.57 (0.24) mmHg, p < 0.05]. LES length is least in achalasia patients and control subjects. The ratio of intra-abdominal to intrathoracic LES is greatest in achalasia (1.29), no reflux and normal motility group, and controls and least in reflux disease (1.04, p < 0.05). In conclusion, esophageal body length is greatest in achalasia and least in reflux disease. This is associated with caudal movement of the LES in achalasia and cranial movement of the LES in reflux disease, relative to the diaphragm.     

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in asthma patients without reflux symptoms

Gastroesophageal reflux is a potential trigger of asthma that may be clinically silent. This study examines the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in asthma patients without reflux symptoms. This prospective cohort study evaluated 26 patients with stable asthma without reflux symptoms using esophageal manometry and 24-h esophageal pH testing. Gastroesophageal reflux was considered present if esophageal acid contact times were abnormal. Demographic variables were analyzed to determine if they predicted the presence of gastroesophageal reflux. Asthma patients with asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux were compared with 30 age-matched asthma patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. The prevalence of abnormal 24-h esophageal pH tests in asthma patients without reflux symptoms was 62% (16 of 26). Demographic variables did not predict abnormal 24-h esophageal pH tests in asthma patients with asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. Asthma patients with asymptomatic gastroesophageal reflux had higher amounts of proximal esophageal acid exposure (p < 0.05) compared with asthma patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. Because demographic variables do not predict abnormal 24-h esophageal pH tests in asthma patients without reflux symptoms, 24-h esophageal pH testing is required. This study suggests that gastroesophageal reflux is present in asthma patients, even in the absence of esophageal symptoms.     

Barrett's esophagus in females: a comparative analysis of risk factors in females and males

OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms occur with similar frequency in males and females, yet Barrett's esophagus is less common in females. The reason for this disparity is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the factors related to Barrett's in females. METHODS: The records of 796 patients (462 male, 334 female) evaluated from 1990 to 2000 for symptoms of reflux were retrospectively reviewed. Physiologic abnormalities based on results of endoscopic, motility, pH, and Bilitec testing were identified, and factors related to the presence of Barrett's were determined using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Females with reflux symptoms were significantly less likely to have a positive 24-h pH test, a defective lower esophageal sphincter, or a hiatal hernia than males with reflux symptoms. Further, females with reflux on the basis of an abnormal 24-h pH test had significantly less esophageal acid exposure than males with reflux. In contrast, esophageal exposure to refluxed acid and bilirubin was similar in females (n = 50) and males (n = 136) with Barrett's. On multivariable analysis increased esophageal bilirubin exposure was the only significant factor associated with the presence of Barrett's in male and female patients with reflux disease. CONCLUSIONS: Females with reflux symptoms have less esophageal acid exposure on average than males. However, females and males with Barrett's have a similar severity of reflux, and the female gender does not protect against the development of Barrett's in the setting of advanced reflux disease. Esophageal bilirubin exposure is the major risk factor for the presence of Barrett's in patients with reflux disease.     

Utility of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH and motility monitoring in noncardiac chest pain: report of 90 patients and review of the literature

It is unclear whether prolonged motility monitoring improves the diagnostic yield of standard esophageal tests in patients with noncardiac chest pain. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic value of ambulatory 24-hr pH and pressure monitoring in patients with noncardiac chest pain. Stationary manometry, edrophonium testing, and ambulatory pH and motility studies were performed in 90 consecutive patients with recurrent chest pain and normal coronary angiograms. Normality limits of ambulatory 24-hr motility were established in 30 healthy controls. The diagnoses of specific esophageal motility disorders (nutcracker esophagus and diffuse esophageal spasm) by stationary and ambulatory manometry were discordant in 48% of the patients. Edrophonium testing was positive in 9 patients, but correlated poorly with esophageal diagnoses. During ambulatory studies, 144 chest pain events occurred in 42 patients, and 72 (50%) were related to esophageal dysfunction. Strict temporal associations of events with esophageal dysfunction in relation to ambulatory 24-hr pH'motility scores permitted four patient categorizations: true positives (event-related and abnormal tests), N = 15; true negatives (event-unrelated and abnormal tests), N = 10; reduced esophageal pain threshold (event-related and normal tests), N = 4; and indeterminate origin (event-unrelated and normal tests), N = 13. Overall, 19 patients (21%) had a probable esophageal cause for chest pain (14 esophageal motility disorder, 4 acid reflux, 1 both). In conclusion, ambulatory manometry increases the diagnostic yield of standard esophageal testing in noncardiac chest pain, but the gain is small. Causes of chest pain other than high esophageal pressures and acid reflux must still be sought in most patients with chest pain of unknown origin after a negative cardiac work-up.     

Esophageal function worsens with long duration of diabetes

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the duration of diabetes and esophageal dysfunction. METHODS: We examined 66 patients with type 2 diabetes. Duration of diabetes was determined by asking patients and from their medical records. The patients were divided into three groups according to the duration of their diabetes: group A, 1-4 years, n=26; group B, 5-9 years, n=20; and group C, 10+ years, n=20. Ambulatory esophageal 24-h pH and motility were monitored, and gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal motility disorders were estimated in detail. RESULTS: When the duration of diabetes was long, the percentage of time with pH<4 tended to increase. The amplitude of esophageal peristaltic waves and the frequency of effective peristalsis were reduced when the duration of diabetes was long. A significant correlation was observed between the duration of diabetes and the frequency of effective peristalsis. The number of esophageal peristaltic waves per minute and the percentage of multipeaked peristaltic waves increased significantly in group B, and decreased when the duration of diabetes became longer. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal motility disorders worsened with long duration of diabetes. These esophageal dysfunctions should be considered in patients with long-standing diabetes.     

Esophageal motor disorders in cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices non-submitted to endoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND: The hepatic cirrhosis has as one of the main morbid-mortality causes, the portal hypertension with the development of esophageal varices, the possibility of a digestive hemorrhage and worsening of hepatic insufficiency. It is important to identify causal predictive or aggravating factors and if possible to prevent them. In the last years, it has been observed the association of esophageal motor disorders and gastro-esophageal reflux in cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices. AIMS: To study the prevalence of the esophageal motility disorders and among them, the ineffective esophageal motility, in patients with hepatic cirrhosis and esophageal varices, without previous endoscopic therapeutic and the predictive factors. METHODS: Prospectively, it has been evaluate 74 patients suffering from liver cirrhosis and esophagic varices, without previous endoscopic treatment. All of them were submitted to a clinical protocol, esophageal manometry and 55 patients also held the ambulatory esophageal pHmetry. RESULTS: Esophageal motility disorders have been found in 44 patients (60%). The most prevalent was the ineffective esophageal motility, observed in 28%. The abnormal reflux disease was diagnosed through the pHmetry in 35% of the patients. There were no correlation between the manometrical abnormality in general and the ineffective esophageal motility in particular and the esophageal or gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, the abnormal reflux, the disease seriousness, the ascites presence and the gauge of the varices. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cirrhotic patients with non-treated esophageal varices present esophageal motor disorders. No predictive factor was found. The clinical relevance of these findings need more researches in the scope to define the real meaning of theses abnormalities.     

Pathophysiology of functional heartburn based on Rome III criteria in Japanese patients

AIM: To investigate the pathophysiology of functional heartburn (FH) in Japanese patients.METHODS: A total of 111 patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease underwent intraesophageal pressure testing and 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (24MII-pH) testing. The patients also completed several questionnaires while they were receiving the PPI treatment, including the questionnaire for the diagnosis of reflux disease (QUEST), the frequency scale for the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (FSSG), the gastrointestinal symptoms rating scale (GSRS), SF-36, and the Cornell Medical Index (CMI). The subjects were classified into FH and endoscopy-negative reflux disease (ENRD) groups based on the Rome III criteria.RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with esophageal motility disorder were excluded from this study, while 22 patients with abnormal esophageal acid exposure time (pH-POS) and 34 with hypersensitive esophagus (HE) were included in the ENRD group. The FH group included 22 patients with no reflux involvement. Sex, age, and body mass index did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean SF-36 values were < 50 (normal) for all scales in these groups, with no significant differences. The GSRS scores in these groups were not different and showed overlap with other gastrointestinal symptoms. The QUEST and the FSSG scores did not differ significantly between the groups. Neuroticism was diagnosed using the CMI questionnaire in 17 of the 78 included subjects within the pH-POS (n = 4), HE (n = 8), and FH (n = 5) groups, with no significant differences.CONCLUSION: Clinical characteristics of the FH and PPI-refractory ENRD groups were similar. Therefore, esophageal function should be examined via manometry and 24MII-pH testing to differentiate between them.     

A critical approach to noncardiac chest pain: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment

Approximately 30% of coronary angiograms performed in this country are negative for significant coronary artery disease. These patients are classified as having noncardiac or unexplained chest pain (UCP). Despite the good overall prognosis, this condition has significant morbidity and costs. The pathophysiology of this condition is likely caused by overlapping cardiac, esophageal, and psychiatric abnormalities with visceral hyperalgesia playing a central role. Gastroenterologists are often consulted in the evaluation of these patients because esophageal disorders are among the most common conditions associated with UCP. However, clinical symptoms are unreliable in differentiating between esophageal and cardiac causes of UCP. Gastroesophageal reflux disease, not esophageal motility disorders, is the most common esophageal disorder present in patients with UCP. The most useful diagnostic test in the evaluation of UCP is 24-h pH monitoring. An initial empiric trial of high-dose acid suppression is the most cost-effective intervention in the management of these patients. A clinical algorithm is suggested for the evaluation and treatment of UCP.     

Twenty-four hour intraesophageal pH monitoring in children and adolescents with scleroderma and mixed connective tissue disease

OBJECTIVE: To investigate esophageal dysmotility and gastroesophageal reflux, which are important, but often occult features of gastrointestinal (GI) involvement in children and adolescents with mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) and scleroderma. METHODS: We carried out intraesophageal 24 h pH monitoring of 14 patients with scleroderma and MCTD. RESULTS: We observed an elevated reflux index in 64% of the patients. An increased number of reflux events was found in 85%. Reflux events > 5 min were noted in 50% of the patients, which is indicative of possible development of esophagitis. Only 3 patients presented clinical symptoms. Four of 5 patients with localized scleroderma revealed a pathological reflux index. We found no relationship between gastroesophageal reflux, age of patients, duration of disease, and Raynaud's phenomenon. CONCLUSION: GI involvement in children with scleroderma or MCTD is more frequent than clinical symptoms indicate. An active diagnostic investigation for GI dysmotility and gastroesophageal reflux is necessary to detect these complications.     

A gastroenterologists view of chest pain

Esophageal disorders are common, but have been underemphasized as causes of chest pain in patients with “chest pain and normal coronary arteries,” as well as in patients with documented coronary disease. Reasons include failure to pursue evaluation once cardiac sources have been excluded; the atypical nature, location and/or radiation of pain in many patients, leading one away from proper consideration of the esophagus as a pain source; performing tests (upper GI series, fiberoptic endoscopy, oral cholecystography) that have low sensitivity for the detection of the diseases most likely to be the cause of chest pain (gastroesophageal reflux disease, the primary esophageal motility disorders). Esophageal motility testing, esophageal acid perfusion, acid reflux testing and the use of pharmacologic agents to induce chest pain and dysmotility are of greater value. In general, these tests can be performed in less than two hours. In some instances, prolonged recording of distal esophageal pH and/or motility may help identify gastroesophageal reflux or a painful primary esophageal motility disorder as the cause of chest pain. Treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease is effective in most patients. One must be especially aggressive in the treatment of reflux in patients with coexistent coronary disease. The aim of treatment should be to eliminate pain episodes, since in these patients, pain emanating from an acid-sensitive esophagus may be confused with angina or, in some instances, actually induce myocardial ischemia. While therapy in the painful primary esophageal motility disorders is less effective than for reflux disease, several newer treatments show promise.