No abstract available.
Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Rome

Recognizing nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) as a distinct presentation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was one of the most important developments in the field of GERD in the last decade. Whilst the definition of NERD has not changed significantly over the years, the disorder accounts for the majority of the GERD patients and those who failed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. Recent developments in NERD focused primarily on understanding the pathophysiology and natural history. The introduction of esophageal impedance + pH has led to the assessment of other forms of gastroesophageal reflux in causing NERD. Therapeutic modalities still focus on acid suppression, but there is growing recognition that other therapeutic strategies should be considered in NERD.
Electric Impedance ; Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Humans ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Natural History ; Proton Pumps

No abstract available.

In general, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is diagnosed clinically based on typical symptoms and/or response to proton pump inhibitor treatment. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is reserved for patients presenting with alarm symptoms, such as dysphagia, odynophagia, significant weight loss, gastrointestinal bleeding, or anorexia; those who meet the criteria for Barrett’s esophagus screening; those who report a lack or partial response to proton pump inhibitor treatment; and those with prior endoscopic or surgical anti-reflux interventions. Newer endoscopic techniques are primarily used to increase diagnostic yield and provide an alternative to medical or surgical treatment for GERD. The available endoscopic modalities for the diagnosis of GERD include conventional endoscopy with white-light imaging, high-resolution and high-magnification endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, image-enhanced endoscopy (narrow-band imaging, I- SCAN, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging, and linked color imaging), and confocal laser endomicroscopy. Endoscopic techniques for treating GERD include esophageal radiofrequency energy delivery/Stretta procedure, transoral incisionless fundoplication, and endoscopic full-thickness plication. Other novel techniques include anti-reflux mucosectomy, peroral endoscopic cardiac constriction, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and endoscopic band ligation. Currently, many of the new endoscopic techniques are not widely available, and their use is limited to centers of excellence.

Noncardiac chest pain is defined as recurrent chest pain that is indistinguishable from ischemic heart pain after a reasonable workup has excluded a cardiac cause. Noncardiac chest pain is a prevalent disorder resulting in high healthcare utilization and significant work absenteeism. However, despite its chronic nature, noncardiac chest pain has no impact on patients' mortality. The main underlying mechanisms include gastroesophageal reflux, esophageal dysmotility and esophageal hypersensitivity. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is likely the most common cause of noncardiac chest pain. Esophageal dysmotility affects only the minority of noncardiac chest pain patients. Esophageal hypersensitivity may be present in non-GERD-related noncardiac chest pain patients regardless if esophageal dysmotility is present or absent. Psychological co-morbidities such as panic disorder, anxiety, and depression are also common in noncardiac chest pain patients and often modulate patients' perception of disease severity.
Absenteeism ; Anxiety ; Chest Pain ; Delivery of Health Care ; Depression ; Esophageal Motility Disorders ; Esophagus ; Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Heart ; Heartburn ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Panic Disorder ; Thorax

Background/Aims: Presently, there is paucity of information about clinical predictors, especially esophageal motor abnormalities, for long segment Barrett’s esophagus (LSBE) as compared with short segment Barrett’s esophagus (SSBE). The aims of this study are to compare the frequency of esophageal function abnormalities between patients with LSBE and those with SSBE and to determine their clinical predictors. Methods: This was a multicenter cohort study that included all patients with a diagnosis of BE who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry. Motility disorders were categorized as hypercontractile disorders or hypocontractile disorders and their frequency was compared between patients with LSBE and those with SSBE. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to calculate the odds of being diagnosed with LSBE relative to SSBE for demographics, comorbidities, medication use, endoscopic findings, and the type of motility disorders. Results: A total of 148 patients with BE were identified, of which 89 (60.1%) had SSBE and 59 (39.9%) LSBE. Patients with LSBE had a significantly larger hiatal hernia and higher likelihood of erosive esophagitis than patients with SSBE (P = 0.002). Patients with LSBE had a significantly lower mean LES resting pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, and significantly higher failed swallows and hypocontractile motility disorders than those with SSBE (P < 0.05). Hiatal hernia and hypocontractile motility disorder increased the odds of LSBE by 38.0% and 242.0%, as opposed to SSBE. Conclusions The presence of a hypocontractile motility disorder increased the risk for LSBE. Furthermore, the risk for LSBE was directly associated with the length of the hiatal hernia.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is very common, affecting up to 40% of the patients receiving proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. However, there is not much information about the clinical characteristics of these patients. The aim of the study is to compare the clinical characteristics of PPI responders vs non-responders. METHODS: Consecutive GERD patients receiving PPI once or twice daily were evaluated by a questionnaire and a personal interview regarding their demographics, habits, clinical characteristics and endoscopic findings. The patients were divided into 3 groups: Patients who fully responded to PPI once daily (Group A, n = 111), patients who failed PPI once daily (Group B, n = 78) and patients who failed PPI twice daily (Group C, n = 56). RESULTS: A total of 245 patients (59.3% females, 52 +/- 17.2 years of age) were included in this study. Cross-group differences (A vs B vs C) were detected for hiatal hernia (33% vs 51% vs 52%, P = 0.011); erosive esophagitis (19% vs 51% vs 30%, P < 0.0001); cough (24% vs 44% vs 43%, P = 0.007); sleep disturbances (19% vs 30% vs 38%, P = 0.033); chest symptoms (21% vs 35% vs 41%, P = 0.010); Helicobacter pylori status (25% vs 33% vs 48%, P < 0.0001), disease duration (1.6 +/- 0.8 vs 1.9 +/- 1.0 vs 2.0 +/- 1.1 years, P = 0.007), performed lifestyle interventions (68.5% vs 46.7% vs 69.6%, P = 0.043) and compliance (84% vs 55% vs 46%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PPI failure (either once or twice daily) appears to be significantly associated with atypical GERD symptoms, disease duration and severity, H. pylori status, obesity, performed lifestyle interventions and compliance as compared with PPI responders.
Compliance ; Cough ; Demography ; Esophagitis ; Female ; Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Helicobacter pylori ; Hernia, Hiatal ; Humans ; Life Style ; Obesity ; Proton Pump Inhibitors ; Proton Pumps ; Protons ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Thorax

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a highly prevalent disease. Assessing treatment efficacy is critical in that clinical endpoints are properly evaluated. Clinical tools for symptoms severity assessment should be discriminative, predictive and evaluative. METHODS: In this study we compared a patient-oriented symptoms evaluation (ReQuest(TM)) vs a structured interview assessment initiated by a physician (sickness impact profile [SIP]). Both questionnaires were analyzed in a multidimensional space using latent factors. Five dimensions were found: 1 for the short ReQuest(TM) questionnaire and 4 for SIP. RESULTS: We included 1,522 women and 1,296 men; mean age was 36 +/- 7 years, and mean body mass index was 26 +/- 4. The score questionnaire assessment evaluation by physicians and patients did not correlate between them (between r = 0.03 and 0.26) except nausea and sleep disorder (r = 0.45 and 0.51) but both were sensitive enough to detect changes after treatment (P < 0.05). Medical specialty of the physician showed effect on the score of both, ReQuest(TM) and SIP evaluation. Questionnaire variance decomposition due to specialist was only 2% (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While both evaluations are orthogonal (non-correlated), meaning patients and physicians measured diverse aspects of the same disease, they both were able to measure patient's improvement with treatment.
2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles ; Body Mass Index ; Female ; Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Humans ; Monitoring, Physiologic ; Nausea ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Specialization ; Treatment Outcome

It has been suggested that patients with certain motility disorders may progress overtime to develop achalasia. We describe a 66 year-old woman who presented with dysphagia for solids and liquids for a period of 18 months. Her initial workup showed normal endoscopy and non-specific esophageal motility disorder on conventional manometry. Six months later, due to persistence of symptoms, the patient underwent a high resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) demonstrating jackhammer esophagus. The patient was treated with a high dose proton pump inhibitor but without resolution of her symptoms. During the last year, the patient reported repeated episodes of food regurgitation and a significant weight loss. A repeat HREM revealed type II achalasia. Multiple case reports, and only a few prospective studies have demonstrated progression from certain esophageal motility disorders to achalasia. However, this report is the first to describe a case of jackhammer esophagus progressing to type II achalasia.
Deglutition Disorders ; Endoscopy ; Esophageal Achalasia* ; Esophageal Motility Disorders ; Esophagus* ; Female ; Humans ; Manometry ; Prospective Studies ; Proton Pumps ; Weight Loss

No abstract available.
Esophageal Achalasia* ; Esophagus*