BACKGROUND/AIMS: Impaired esophageal acid clearance may be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of Barrett’s esophagus. However, few studies have measured acid clearance as such in these patients. In this explorative, cross-sectional study, we aimed to compare esophageal acid clearance and swallowing rate in patients with Barrett’s esophagus to that in healthy controls. METHODS: A total of 26 patients with histology-confirmed Barrett’s esophagus and 12 healthy controls underwent (1) upper endoscopy, (2) an acid clearance test using a pH-impedance probe under controlled conditions including controlled and random swallowing, and (3) an ambulatory pH-impedance measurement. RESULTS: Compared with controls and when swallowing randomly, patients cleared acid 46% faster (P = 0.008). Furthermore, patients swallowed 60% more frequently (mean swallows/minute: 1.90 ± 0.74 vs 1.19 ± 0.58; P = 0.005), and acid clearance time decreased with greater random swallowing rate (P < 0.001). Swallowing rate increased with lower distal esophageal baseline impedance (P = 0.014). Ambulatory acid exposure was greater in patients (P = 0.033), but clearance times assessed from the ambulatory pH-measurement and acid clearance test were not correlated (all P > 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: More frequent swallowing and thus faster acid clearance in Barrett’s esophagus may constitute a protective reflex due to impaired mucosal integrity and possibly acid hypersensitivity. Despite these reinforced mechanisms, acid clearance ability seems to be overthrown by repeated, retrograde acid reflux, thus resulting in increased esophageal acid exposure and consequently mucosal changes.
Barrett Esophagus* ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Deglutition* ; Electric Impedance ; Endoscopy ; Esophageal pH Monitoring ; Esophagus ; Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Reflex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Efficient transport through the esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) requires synchronized circular and longitudinal muscle contraction of the esophagus including relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). However, there is a scarcity of technology for measuring esophagus movements in the longitudinal (axial) direction. The aim of this study is to develop new analytical tools for dynamic evaluation of the length change and axial movement of the human LES based on the functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) technology and to present normal signatures for the selected parameters. METHODS: Six healthy volunteers without hiatal hernia were included. Data were analyzed from stepwise LES distensions at 20, 30, and 40 mL bag volumes. The bag pressure and the diameter change were used for motion analysis in the LES. The cyclic bag pressure frequency was used to distinguish dynamic changes of the LES induced by respiration and secondary peristalsis. RESULTS: Cyclic fluctuations of the LES were evoked by respiration and isovolumetric distension, with phasic changes of bag pressure, diameter, length, and axial movement of the LES narrow zone. Compared to the respiration-induced LES fluctuations, peristaltic contractions increased the contraction pressure amplitude (P < 0.001), shortening (P < 0.001), axial movement (P < 0.001), and diameter change (P < 0.01) of the narrow zone. The length of the narrow zone shortened as function of the pressure increase. CONCLUSIONS: FLIP can be used for evaluation of dynamic length changes and axial movement of the human LES. The method may shed light on abnormal longitudinal muscle activity in esophageal disorders.
Esophageal Sphincter, Lower ; Esophagus ; Healthy Volunteers ; Hernia, Hiatal ; Humans ; Methods ; Muscle Contraction ; Peristalsis ; Phenobarbital ; Relaxation ; Respiration

Background/Aims: It is a common belief that constipated patients have hard feces that contributes to the difficulties defecating. To the best of our knowledge, no studies had been published on controlled evacuation of simulated feces with different consistencies. Methods: Twelve normal subjects were recruited for studies with the simulated feces device “Fecobionics” of different consistency (silicone shore 0A-40A corresponding to Bristol stool form scale types 2-4). The subjects filled out questionnaires and had the balloon expulsion test and anorectal manometry done for reference. The Fecobionics probes were inserted in rectum in random order with +20 minutes between insertions. The bag was filled to urge-to-defecate and evacuations took place in privacy. Non-parametric statistics with median and quartiles are provided. Results: One subject was excluded due to technical issues, and another had abnormal anorectal manometry–balloon expulsion test. The 4 females/6 males subjects were aged 23 (range 20-48) years. Most differences were observed between the 0A and 10A probe (duration, maximum bag pressure, duration x maximum bag pressure, and relaxation of the front pressure and the bend angle during evacuation), eg, the duration was 9 (8-12) seconds at 0A and 18 (12-21) seconds at 10A (P < 0.05), and maximum bag pressure was 107 (96-116) cmH 2 O at 0A and 140 (117-162) cmH 2 O at 10A (P < 0.05). The bend angle before evacuation differed between the probes whereas only the 10A differed from 40A during defecation. The 10A was harder to evacuate than the 0A probe. Except for the bend angles, no further significant change was observed from 10A to 40A. Conclusion Fecal consistency affects defecatory parameters.