Esophageal Body Motility for Clinical Assessment in Patients with Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms.
- Author:
Liuqin JIANG
1
;
Bixing YE
;
Ying WANG
;
Meifeng WANG
;
Lin LIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Electric impedance; Esophageal dysmotility; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Manometry
- MeSH: Electric Impedance; Esophageal Motility Disorders; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower; Esophagitis; Gastroesophageal Reflux*; Humans; Male; Manometry; Retrospective Studies
- From:Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2017;23(1):64-71
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: BACKGROUND/AIMS: Little data exists about esophageal body dysmotility and reflux patterns in refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (RGERD) patients off therapy. We aimed to evaluate effects of esophageal body dysmotility on reflux parameters in RGERD patients by combining impedance-pH monitoring and high-resolution manometry (HRM). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the impedance-pH data and HRM metrics in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Impedance-pH monitoring and manometric data were compared between 2 groups: ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and normal motility. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (30 males, mean age 54.5 years) were included (16 erosive esophagitis, 24 non-erosive reflux disease, and 8 functional heartburn), amongst which 24 subjects showed IEM, and others had normal motility. Number of patients who had a large break in the IEM group was significantly higher than that of normal motility patients. IEM group had more patients with weakly acid reflux and long term acid reflux than the normal group (P = 0.008, P = 0.004, respectively). There was no statistical difference in baseine impedance levels from z4 to z6 between the 2 groups (2911 ± 1160 Ω vs 3604 ± 1232 Ω, 2766 ± 1254 Ω vs 3752 ± 1439 Ω, 2349 ± 1131 Ω vs 3038 ± 1254 Ω, all P > 0.05). Acid exposure time, numbers of long term acid reflux and weakly acid reflux showed strong negative correlation with esophageal body motility and/or lower esophageal sphincter function. CONCLUSIONS: IEM was associated more with acid exposure, abnormal weakly acid reflux, and long term acid reflux in RGERD patients. These data suggested the role of esophageal body dysmotility in the pathophysiological mechanisms of RGERD patients.
