Literature DB >> 11318538

Role of esophageal function tests in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

M G Patti1, U Diener, A Tamburini, D Molena, L W Way.   

Abstract

Clinicians typically make the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) from the clinical findings and then prescribe acid-suppressing drugs. Endoscopy is usually done for persistent or severe symptoms. Esophageal function tests (EFTs: esophageal manometry and 24-hr pH monitoring) are generally reserved for patients who have the most severe disease, including those being considered for surgery. We hypothesized that EFTs are more accurate than symptoms and endoscopy in the diagnosis of GERD. This was a retrospective study undertaken in a university tertiary care center. Between October 1989 and November 1998, 822 patients with a clinical diagnosis of GERD (based on symptoms and endoscopic findings) were referred for EFTs. The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether the 24-hr pH monitoring score showed GERD (group A, GERD-; group B, GERD+). The groups were compared with respect to the incidence and severity of symptoms, presence of a hiatal hernia on barium x-rays, presence and severity of esophagitis on endoscopy, and esophageal motility. In all, 247 patients (30%) had normal reflux scores (group A, GERD-), and 575 patients (70%) had abnormal scores (Group B, GERD+). Eighty percent of group A and 88% of group B had been treated with acid-suppressing medications. The incidence of heartburn and regurgitation was similar in the two groups. Grade I-II esophagitis was diagnosed by endoscopy in 25% of group A and 35% of group B, and grade III esophagitis in 4% of group A and 11% of group B. Esophageal manometry showed that group B more often had esophageal dysmotility, consisting of a hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter and abnormal esophageal peristalsis. These data show that: (1) symptoms were unreliable for diagnosing GERD; (2) endoscopic evidence of grade I-II esophagitis was diagnostically nonspecific, and grade III was much less certain than claimed in other reports; and (3) pH monitoring identified patients with GERD and stratified them according to the severity of the disease. We conclude that esophageal manometry and pH monitoring are important in diagnosing GERD accurately. More liberal use of these tests early in patient management would avoid much improper and costly medical therapy and would help single out for special attention the patients with GERD who have the most severe disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11318538     DOI: 10.1023/a:1005611602100

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  19 in total

1.  Can the combination of symptoms and endoscopy confirm the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease?

Authors:  L Tefera; M Fein; M P Ritter; C G Bremner; P F Crookes; J H Peters; J A Hagen; T R DeMeester
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 0.688

2.  Empirical therapy versus diagnostic tests in gastroesophageal reflux disease: a medical decision analysis.

Authors:  A Sonnenberg; F Delcò; H B El-Serag
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  The diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a managed care environment, Suggested disease management guidelines.

Authors:  M B Fennerty; D Castell; A M Fendrick; M Halpern; D Johnson; P J Kahrilas; D Leiberman; J E Richter; R E Sampliner
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-03-11

4.  Ineffective esophageal motility: the most common motility abnormality in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms.

Authors:  Y M Fouad; P O Katz; J G Hatlebakk; D O Castell
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Effect of laparoscopic fundoplication on gastroesophageal reflux disease-induced respiratory symptoms.

Authors:  M G Patti; M Arcerito; A Tamburini; U Diener; C V Feo; B Safadi; P Fisichella; L W Way
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 6.  Gastroesophageal reflux. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy.

Authors:  J E Richter; D O Castell
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Interobserver variation in the endoscopic diagnosis of reflux esophagitis.

Authors:  P Bytzer; T Havelund; J M Hansen
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  Specificity and sensitivity of objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  K H Fuchs; T R DeMeester; M Albertucci
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 9.  Typical and atypical presentations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The role of esophageal testing in diagnosis and management.

Authors:  J E Richter
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 3.806

10.  Clinical and functional characterization of high gastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  M G Patti; H T Debas; C A Pellegrini
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  33 in total

1.  Histologic and clinical outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  V Ozmen; E Sen Oran; E Gorgun; O Asoglu; A Igci; M Kecer; F Dizdaroglu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  [Correct diagnosis for indication in gastroesophageal reflux disease].

Authors:  A H Hölscher; E Bollschweiler; Ch Gutschow; P Malfertheiner
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 3.  Paraesophageal Hernia and Reflux Prevention: Is One Fundoplication Better than the Other?

Authors:  Ciro Andolfi; Alejandro Plana; Sara Furno; Piero Marco Fisichella
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Piero Marco Fisichella; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-07-23

5.  Gastroesophageal reflux disease and antireflux surgery-what is the proper preoperative work-up?

Authors:  Brian Bello; Marco Zoccali; Roberto Gullo; Marco E Allaix; Fernando A Herbella; Arunas Gasparaitis; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Prevalence of bile reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients not responsive to proton pump inhibitors.

Authors:  Luigi Monaco; Antonio Brillantino; Francesco Torelli; Michele Schettino; Giuseppe Izzo; Angelo Cosenza; Natale Di Martino
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  The pulmonary side of reflux disease: from heartburn to lung fibrosis.

Authors:  Marco E Allaix; P Marco Fisichella; Imre Noth; Bernardino M Mendez; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Esophageal motility in nonacid reflux compared with acid reflux.

Authors:  Victor S Wang; Natan Feldman; Rie Maurer; Robert Burakoff
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Esophageal function and Sjögren's syndrome.

Authors:  Françoise Volter; Olivier Fain; Emmanuel Mathieu; Michel Thomas
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Clinical, radiological, and manometric profile in 145 patients with untreated achalasia.

Authors:  Piero M Fisichella; Dan Raz; Francesco Palazzo; Ian Niponmick; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.