Literature DB >> 25448923

Mucosal impedance discriminates GERD from non-GERD conditions.

Fehmi Ates1, Elif Saritas Yuksel1, Tina Higginbotham1, James C Slaughter2, Jerry Mabary3, Robert T Kavitt1, C Gaelyn Garrett4, David Francis5, Michael F Vaezi6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current diagnostic tests for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are suboptimal and do not accurately and reliably measure chronicity of reflux. A minimally invasive device has been developed to assess esophageal mucosal impedance (MI) as a marker of chronic reflux. We performed a prospective longitudinal study to investigate MI patterns in patients with GERD and common nonreflux conditions, to assess MI patterns before and after treatment with proton pump inhibitors and to compare the performance of MI and wireless pH tests.
METHODS: We evaluated MI in 61 patients with erosive esophagitis, 81 with nonerosive but pH-abnormal GERD, 93 without GERD, 18 with achalasia, and 15 with eosinophilic esophagitis. MI was measured at the site of esophagitis and at 2, 5, and 10 cm above the squamocolumnar junction in all participants. MI was measured before and after acid suppressive therapy, and findings were compared with those from wireless pH monitoring.
RESULTS: MI values were significantly lower in patients with GERD (erosive esophagitis or nonerosive but pH-abnormal GERD) or eosinophilic esophagitis than in patients without GERD or patients with achalasia (P < .001). The pattern of MI in patients with GERD differed from that in patients without GERD or patients with eosinophilic esophagitis; patients with GERD had low MI closer to the squamocolumnar junction, and values increased axially along the esophagus. These patterns normalized with acid suppressive therapy. MI patterns identified patients with esophagitis with higher levels of specificity (95%) and positive predictive values (96%) than wireless pH monitoring (64% and 40%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on a prospective study using a prototype device, measurements of MI detect GERD with higher levels of specificity and positive predictive values than wireless pH monitoring. Clinical Trials.gov, Number: NCT01556919.
Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative Analysis; PPI; Reflux Damage

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25448923     DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.10.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  40 in total

Review 1.  Mucosal Impedance: a New Approach to Diagnosing Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Authors:  Caroline Barrett; Yash Choksi; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2018-06-09

Review 2.  New Developments in the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux.

Authors:  Yan Jiang; John O Clarke
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-02-19

Review 3.  A Conceptual Approach to Understanding Treatment Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Authors:  Evan S Dellon; Sandeep K Gupta
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Laryngopharyngeal Reflux and Functional Laryngeal Disorder: Perspective and Common Practice of the General Gastroenterologist.

Authors:  Dhyanesh A Patel; Michael Blanco; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2018-09

Review 5.  Updated International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Proceedings of the AGREE Conference.

Authors:  Evan S Dellon; Chris A Liacouras; Javier Molina-Infante; Glenn T Furuta; Jonathan M Spergel; Noam Zevit; Stuart J Spechler; Stephen E Attwood; Alex Straumann; Seema S Aceves; Jeffrey A Alexander; Dan Atkins; Nicoleta C Arva; Carine Blanchard; Peter A Bonis; Wendy M Book; Kelley E Capocelli; Mirna Chehade; Edaire Cheng; Margaret H Collins; Carla M Davis; Jorge A Dias; Carlo Di Lorenzo; Ranjan Dohil; Christophe Dupont; Gary W Falk; Cristina T Ferreira; Adam Fox; Nirmala P Gonsalves; Sandeep K Gupta; David A Katzka; Yoshikazu Kinoshita; Calies Menard-Katcher; Ellyn Kodroff; David C Metz; Stephan Miehlke; Amanda B Muir; Vincent A Mukkada; Simon Murch; Samuel Nurko; Yoshikazu Ohtsuka; Rok Orel; Alexandra Papadopoulou; Kathryn A Peterson; Hamish Philpott; Philip E Putnam; Joel E Richter; Rachel Rosen; Marc E Rothenberg; Alain Schoepfer; Melissa M Scott; Neil Shah; Javed Sheikh; Rhonda F Souza; Mary J Strobel; Nicholas J Talley; Michael F Vaezi; Yvan Vandenplas; Mario C Vieira; Marjorie M Walker; Joshua B Wechsler; Barry K Wershil; Ting Wen; Guang-Yu Yang; Ikuo Hirano; Albert J Bredenoord
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 6.  Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of GERD: New Tricks for an Old Disease.

Authors:  Rishi D Naik; Lauren Evers; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03

7.  Development and Validation of a Mucosal Impedance Contour Analysis System to Distinguish Esophageal Disorders.

Authors:  Dhyanesh A Patel; Tina Higginbotham; James C Slaughter; Muhammad Aslam; Elif Yuksel; David Katzka; C Prakash Gyawali; Melina Mashi; John Pandolfino; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Diagnosing Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease With Endoscopic-Guided Mucosal Impedance.

Authors:  Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2016-04

9.  Mucosal Impedance Measurements Differentiate Pediatric Patients With Active Versus Inactive Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Authors:  Mary Allyson Lowry; Michael F Vaezi; Hernan Correa; Tina Higginbotham; James C Slaughter; Sari Acra
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.839

Review 10.  New Developments in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Authors:  Quan M Nhu; Fouad J Moawad
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.