BACKGROUND: Even though the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is unknown, there is mounting evidence that abnormal reflux (GERD) and aspiration of gastric contents may play a role in the pathogenesis of this disease. AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine in patients with GERD and IPF: (a) the clinical presentation, (b) the esophageal function, and (c) the reflux profile. METHODS: We compared the clinical presentation, the esophageal function (as defined by high-resolution manometry), and the reflux profile (by dual sensor pH monitoring) in 80 patients with GERD (group A) and in 22 patients with GERD and IPF (group B). RESULTS: Heartburn was present in less than 60 % of patients with GERD and IPF. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure and peristalsis were normal in both groups, while the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) was more frequently hypotensive in IPF patients (p = 0.008). In patients with GERD and IPF, the proximal esophageal acid exposure was higher (p = 0.047) and the supine acid clearance was slower as compared with patients with GERD only (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that in patients with GERD and IPF: (a) reflux is frequently silent, (b) with the exception of a weaker UES, the esophageal function is preserved, and (c) proximal reflux is more common, and in the supine position, it is coupled with a slower acid clearance. Because these factors predisposing IPF patients to the risk of aspiration, antireflux surgery should be considered early after the diagnosis of IPF and GERD is established.
BACKGROUND: Even though the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is unknown, there is mounting evidence that abnormal reflux (GERD) and aspiration of gastric contents may play a role in the pathogenesis of this disease. AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine in patients with GERD and IPF: (a) the clinical presentation, (b) the esophageal function, and (c) the reflux profile. METHODS: We compared the clinical presentation, the esophageal function (as defined by high-resolution manometry), and the reflux profile (by dual sensor pH monitoring) in 80 patients with GERD (group A) and in 22 patients with GERD and IPF (group B). RESULTS: Heartburn was present in less than 60 % of patients with GERD and IPF. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure and peristalsis were normal in both groups, while the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) was more frequently hypotensive in IPF patients (p = 0.008). In patients with GERD and IPF, the proximal esophageal acid exposure was higher (p = 0.047) and the supine acid clearance was slower as compared with patients with GERD only (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that in patients with GERD and IPF: (a) reflux is frequently silent, (b) with the exception of a weaker UES, the esophageal function is preserved, and (c) proximal reflux is more common, and in the supine position, it is coupled with a slower acid clearance. Because these factors predisposing IPF patients to the risk of aspiration, antireflux surgery should be considered early after the diagnosis of IPF and GERD is established.
Authors: J A J L Broeders; F A Mauritz; U Ahmed Ali; W A Draaisma; J P Ruurda; H G Gooszen; A J P M Smout; I A M J Broeders; E J Hazebroek Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Joyce S Lee; Jay H Ryu; Brett M Elicker; Carmen P Lydell; Kirk D Jones; Paul J Wolters; Talmadge E King; Harold R Collard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ganesh Raghu; Derek Weycker; John Edelsberg; Williamson Z Bradford; Gerry Oster Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-06-29 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Anand P Tamhankar; Jeffrey H Peters; Giussepe Portale; Chih-Cheng Hsieh; Jeffrey A Hagen; Cedric G Bremner; Tom R DeMeester Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Marco G Patti; Pietro Tedesco; Jeffrey Golden; Steven Hays; Charles Hoopes; Adam Meneghetti; Tanuja Damani; Lawrence W Way Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: T Ryan Heider; Kevin E Behrns; Mark J Koruda; Nicholas J Shaheen; Tananchai A Lucktong; Barbara Bradshaw; Timothy M Farrell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ganesh Raghu; Kevin K Brown; Williamson Z Bradford; Karen Starko; Paul W Noble; David A Schwartz; Talmadge E King Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-01-08 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Leonardo M Del Grande; Fernando A M Herbella; Amilcar M Bigatao; Jose R Jardim; Marco G Patti Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Marco E Allaix; Fabrizio Rebecchi; Mario Morino; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Pedro Norton; Fernando A M Herbella; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Fernando A M Herbella; Ciro Andolfi; Yalini Vigneswaran; Marco G Patti; Bruno R Pinna Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Misbah Baqir; Amit Vasirreddy; Ann N Vu; Teng Moua; Alanna M Chamberlain; Ryan D Frank; Jay H Ryu Journal: Respir Med Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 4.582