OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and proximal extent of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) in patients awaiting lung transplantation. BACKGROUND: GERD has been postulated to contribute to accelerated graft failure in patients who have had lung transplantations. However, the prevalence of reflux symptoms, esophageal motility abnormalities, and proximal esophageal reflux among patients with end-stage lung disease awaiting lung transplantation are unknown. METHODS: A total of 109 patients with end-stage lung disease awaiting lung transplantation underwent symptomatic assessment, esophageal manometry, and esophageal pH monitoring (using a probe with 2 sensors located 5 and 20 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter). RESULTS: Reflux symptoms were not predictive of the presence of reflux (sensitivity, 67%; specificity, 26%). Esophageal manometry showed a high prevalence of a hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter (55%) and impaired esophageal peristalsis (47%) among patients with reflux. Distal reflux was present in 68% of patients and proximal reflux was present in 37% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that in patients with end-stage lung disease: 1) symptoms were insensitive and nonspecific for diagnosing reflux; 2) esophageal motility was frequently abnormal; 3) 68% of patients had GERD; 4) in 50% of the patients with GERD, acid refluxed into the proximal esophagus. We conclude that patients with end-stage lung disease should be screened with pH monitoring for GERD.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and proximal extent of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) in patients awaiting lung transplantation. BACKGROUND:GERD has been postulated to contribute to accelerated graft failure in patients who have had lung transplantations. However, the prevalence of reflux symptoms, esophageal motility abnormalities, and proximal esophageal reflux among patients with end-stage lung disease awaiting lung transplantation are unknown. METHODS: A total of 109 patients with end-stage lung disease awaiting lung transplantation underwent symptomatic assessment, esophageal manometry, and esophageal pH monitoring (using a probe with 2 sensors located 5 and 20 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter). RESULTS: Reflux symptoms were not predictive of the presence of reflux (sensitivity, 67%; specificity, 26%). Esophageal manometry showed a high prevalence of a hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter (55%) and impaired esophageal peristalsis (47%) among patients with reflux. Distal reflux was present in 68% of patients and proximal reflux was present in 37% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that in patients with end-stage lung disease: 1) symptoms were insensitive and nonspecific for diagnosing reflux; 2) esophageal motility was frequently abnormal; 3) 68% of patients had GERD; 4) in 50% of the patients with GERD, acid refluxed into the proximal esophagus. We conclude that patients with end-stage lung disease should be screened with pH monitoring for GERD.
Authors: Frank D'Ovidio; Lianne G Singer; Denis Hadjiliadis; Andrew Pierre; Thomas K Waddell; Marc de Perrot; Micheal Hutcheon; Linda Miller; Gail Darling; Shaf Keshavjee Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.330
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
Authors: Denis Hadjiliadis; R Duane Davis; Mark P Steele; Robert H Messier; Christine L Lau; Steve S Eubanks; Scott M Palmer Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Stephen Farrell; Cyril McMaster; David Gibson; Michael D Shields; William A McCallion Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: R Duane Davis; Christine L Lau; Steve Eubanks; Robert H Messier; Denis Hadjiliadis; Mark P Steele; Scott M Palmer Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Leonardo M Del Grande; Fernando A M Herbella; Amilcar M Bigatao; Henrique Abrao; Jose R Jardim; Marco G Patti Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: C S Davis; J Gagermeier; D Dilling; C Alex; E Lowery; E J Kovacs; R B Love; P M Fisichella Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Marco G Patti; Marcelo F Vela; David D Odell; Joel E Richter; P Marco Fisichella; Michael F Vaezi Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Geert M Verleden; Lieven Dupont; Jonas Yserbyt; Veronique Schaevers; Dirk Van Raemdonck; Arne Neyrinck; Robin Vos Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Marco E Allaix; Piero M Fisichella; Imre Noth; Fernando A Herbella; Bernardo Borraez Segura; Marco G Patti Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.452
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
Authors: Marco G Patti; Warren J Gasper; Piero M Fisichella; Ian Nipomnick; Francesco Palazzo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 3.452