What is the real impairment on esophageal motility in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease?

CONTEXT: Impairment of esophageal motility is a common finding in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) as reduced lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure. A very low LES pressure might facilitate the occurrence of more gastroesophageal reflux whereas abnormal esophageal peristalsis may contribute to impaired esophageal clearance after reflux. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the esophageal motor function of the lower esophageal sphincter and esophageal body in the various forms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: The manometrics records of 268 patients, who had evaluation of the esophageal motility as part of the diagnostic gastroesophageal reflux disease were split into four groups, as follows: 33 patients who had no esophagitis; 92 patients who had erosive esophagitis; 101 patients who had short Barrett's esophagus and 42 patients who had long Barrett's esophagus. RESULTS: The group who had long Barrett's esophagus showed smaller mean LES pressure and higher percentage of marked LES hypotonia; in the distal segment of the esophageal body the this group showed higher percentage of marked hypocontractility of the distal segment (<30 mm Hg); this same group showed higher percentage of esophageal motility disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The most intense esophageal motility disorders and lower pressure of lower esophageal sphincter were noted in the group with long Barrett's esophagus. Those with reflux esophagitis and short Barrett's esophagus had esophageal motility impairment, intermediate among patients with esophagitis and long Barrett's esophagus. Patients with typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux but without esophagitis by endoscopy study showed no impairment of esophageal motility.

What is the rea impairment on esophageal motilty in patients with gastroesophhageal reflux disease?

Context Impairment of esophageal motility is a common finding in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) as reduced lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure. A very low LES pressure might facilitate the occurrence of more gastroesophageal reflux whereas abnormal esophageal peristalsis may contribute to impaired esophageal clearance after reflux. Objective Evaluate the esophageal motor function of the lower esophageal sphincter and esophageal body in the various forms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Methods The manometrics records of 268 patients, who had evaluation of the esophageal motility as part of the diagnostic gastroesophageal reflux disease were split into four groups, as follows: 33 patients who had no esophagitis; 92 patients who had erosive esophagitis; 101 patients who had short Barrett's esophagus and 42 patients who had long Barrett's esophagus. Results The group who had long Barrett's esophagus showed smaller mean LES pressure and higher percentage of marked LES hypotonia; in the distal segment of the esophageal body the this group showed higher percentage of marked hypocontractility of the distal segment (<30 mm Hg); this same group showed higher percentage of esophageal motility disorders. Conclusions The most intense esophageal motility disorders and lower pressure of lower esophageal sphincter were noted in the group with long Barrett's esophagus. Those with reflux esophagitis and short Barrett's esophagus had esophageal motility impairment, intermediate among patients with esophagitis and long Barrett's esophagus. Patients with typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux but without esophagitis by endoscopy study showed no impairment of esophageal motility. .

Contexto Alteração no peristaltismo esofágico assim como diminuição do tônus basal do esfíncter inferior do esôfago são um achado comum em pacientes com doença do refluxo gastroesofágico. A presença de hipotonia acentuada do esfíncter inferior do esôfago pode facilitar a ocorrência de refluxo gastroesofágico mais intenso e a presença de alteração no peristaltismo esofágico pode contribuir para uma deficiente depuração esofágica. Objetivo Avaliar a função motora do esfíncter inferior do esôfago e do corpo esofágico nas várias formas da doença do refluxo gastroesofágico. Métodos Avaliaram-se os prontuários de 268 pacientes, que realizaram manometria esofágica como parte da investigação diagnóstica da doença do refluxo gastroesofágico. Os pacientes foram distribuidos em quatro grupos: 33 pacientes que não tinham esofagite, 92 pacientes que tinham esofagite erosiva; 101 pacientes que tinham esôfago de Barrett curto e 42 pacientes que tinham esôfago de Barrett longo (grupo EBL). Resultados O grupo dos que tinham EBL, apresentou menor média de pressão do esfíncter inferior do esôfago e maior percentual de hipotonia acentuada do esfíncter inferior do esôfago; no segmento distal do corpo do esôfago, este grupo apresentou maior percentual de hipocontratilidade acentuada (< 30 mm Hg). O grupo dos que tinham EBL apresentou maior porcentagem de distúrbios da motilidade esofágica. Conclusões As alterações mais intensas na motilidade esofágica e no esfíncter inferior do esôfago foram observadas no grupo com EBL. Aqueles com esofagite de refluxo e esôfago de Barrett curto ...

Comparative study of two modes of gastroesophageal reflux measuring: conventional esophageal pH monitoring and wireless pH monitoring.

CONTEXT: Esophageal pH monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal acid reflux. However, this method is very troublesome and considerably limits the patient's routine activities. Wireless pH monitoring was developed to avoid these restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the first 24 hours of the conventional and wireless pH monitoring, positioned 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter, in relation to: the occurrence of relevant technical failures, the ability to detect reflux and the ability to correlate the clinical symptoms to reflux. METHODS: Twenty-five patients referred for esophageal pH monitoring and with typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease were studied prospectively, underwent clinical interview, endoscopy, esophageal manometry and were submitted, with a simultaneous initial period, to 24-hour catheter pH monitoring and 48-hour wireless pH monitoring. RESULTS: Early capsule detachment occurred in one (4%) case and there were no technical failures with the catheter pH monitoring (P = 0.463). Percentages of reflux time (total, upright and supine) were higher with the wireless pH monitoring (P < 0.05). Pathological gastroesophageal reflux occurred in 16 (64%) patients submitted to catheter and in 19 (76%) to the capsule (P = 0.355). The symptom index was positive in 12 (48%) patients with catheter pH monitoring and in 13 (52%) with wireless pH monitoring (P = 0.777). CONCLUSIONS: 1) No significant differences were reported between the two methods of pH monitoring (capsule vs catheter), in regard to relevant technical failures; 2) Wireless pH monitoring detected higher percentages of reflux time than the conventional pH-metry; 3) The two methods of pH monitoring were comparable in diagnosis of pathological gastroesophageal reflux and comparable in correlating the clinical symptoms with the gastroesophageal reflux.

Comparative study of two modes of gastroesophageal reflux measuring: conventional esophageal pH monitoring and wireless pH monitoring / Estudo comparativo de duas modalidades de mensuração do refluxo gastroesofágico: pHmetria esofágica convencional e pHmetria sem cateter

CONTEXT: Esophageal pH monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal acid reflux. However, this method is very troublesome and considerably limits the patient's routine activities. Wireless pH monitoring was developed to avoid these restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the first 24 hours of the conventional and wireless pH monitoring, positioned 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter, in relation to: the occurrence of relevant technical failures, the ability to detect reflux and the ability to correlate the clinical symptoms to reflux. METHODS: Twenty-five patients referred for esophageal pH monitoring and with typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease were studied prospectively, underwent clinical interview, endoscopy, esophageal manometry and were submitted, with a simultaneous initial period, to 24-hour catheter pH monitoring and 48-hour wireless pH monitoring. RESULTS: Early capsule detachment occurred in one (4%) case and there were no technical failures with the catheter pH monitoring (P = 0.463). Percentages of reflux time (total, upright and supine) were higher with the wireless pH monitoring (P < 0.05). Pathological gastroesophageal reflux occurred in 16 (64%) patients submitted to catheter and in 19 (76%) to the capsule (P = 0.355). The symptom index was positive in 12 (48%) patients with catheter pH monitoring and in 13 (52%) with wireless pH monitoring (P = 0.777). CONCLUSIONS: 1) No significant differences were reported between the two methods of pH monitoring (capsule vs catheter), in regard to relevant technical failures; 2) Wireless pH monitoring detected higher percentages of reflux time than the conventional pH-metry; 3) The two methods of pH monitoring were comparable in diagnosis of pathological gastroesophageal reflux and comparable in correlating the clinical symptoms with the gastroesophageal reflux.

CONTEXTO: A pHmetria esofágica é considerada o melhor método diagnóstico do refluxo ácido gastroesofágico. Contudo, é bastante incômoda e restringe consideravelmente as atividades cotidianas do paciente. A pHmetria sem cateter foi desenvolvida para contornar tais limitações. OBJETIVO: Comparar as primeiras 24 horas das pHmetrias convencional e sem cateter, posicionadas a 3 cm acima do esfíncter inferior do esôfago, em relação à: ocorrência de falhas técnicas relevantes, capacidade de detecção do refluxo e capacidade de relacionar as queixas clínicas com o refluxo. MÉTODOS: Foram estudados, de modo prospectivo, 25 pacientes encaminhados para pHmetria esofágica, com sintomas típicos da doença do refluxo gastroesofágico, submetidos a entrevista clínica, endoscopia digestiva, manometria esofágica e realização, com período inicial simultâneo, de pHmetrias com cateter por 24 horas e com cápsula por 48 horas. RESULTADOS: Houve queda precoce da cápsula em um paciente (4%) e nenhuma falha técnica na pHmetria com cateter (P = 0,463). As percentagens de tempo de refluxo (total, ortostático e supino) foram mais elevadas na pHmetria sem cateter (P<0,05). Refluxo gastroesofágico patológico foi diagnosticado em 16 (64,0%) pacientes com o cateter e em 19 (76,0%) com a cápsula (P = 0,355). O índice de sintomas foi positivo em 12 (48%) pacientes na pHmetria com cateter e em 13 (52%) na pHmetria sem cateter (P = 0,777). CONCLUSÕES: 1) Não há diferença significante entre as duas modalidades de pHmetria (cápsula vs cateter), em relação à ocorrência de falhas técnicas relevantes durante o exame; 2) A pHmetria sem cateter detecta refluxo em percentagens superiores às detectadas pela pHmetria convencional; 3) Os dois métodos de pHmetria têm capacidades semelhantes de diagnóstico de refluxo gastroesofágico patológico e capacidades semelhantes de relacionar as queixas clínicas com o refluxo gastroesofágico.

Estudo prospectivo comparativo de duas modalidades de posicionamento do sensor de phmetria esofágica prolongada: por manometria esofágica e pela viragem do Ph / Comparative prospective study of two positioning modes of 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: by esophageal manometry and by the pH step-up technique

RACIONAL: Por padronização aceita internacionalmente, posiciona-se o sensor distal de pHmetria esofágica a 5 cm acima da borda superior do esfíncter inferior do esôfago, localizado por manometria esofágica. Porém, vários autores sugerem técnicas alternativas de posicionamento que prescindem da manometria. Dentre essas, destaca-se a da viragem do pH, tema este controverso pela sua duvidosa confiabilidade. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a adequação do posicionamento do sensor distal de pHmetria pela técnica de viragem do pH, considerando-se a presença, o tipo e o grau de erro de posicionamento que tal técnica proporciona, e também estudar a influência da posição adotada pelo paciente durante a técnica da viragem. MÉTODOS: Foram estudados de modo prospectivo, durante o período de 1 ano, 1.031 pacientes. Durante entrevista clínica, foram registrados os dados demográficos e as queixas clínicas apresentadas. Todos foram submetidos a manometria esofágica para localização do esfíncter inferior do esôfago e a técnica da viragem do pH. A identificação do ponto de viragem foi realizada de dois modos distintos, caracterizando dois grupos de estudo: com o paciente sentado (grupo I - 450 pacientes) e com o paciente em decúbito dorsal horizontal (grupo II - 581 pacientes). Após a identificação do ponto de viragem, o sensor distal de pHmetria era posicionado na posição padronizada, baseada na localização manométrica do esfíncter. Registrava-se onde seria posicionado o sensor de pH se fosse adotada a técnica da viragem. Para avaliação da adequação do posicionamento, considerou-se que o erro é representado pela diferença (em centímetros) entre a localização padronizada (manométrica) e a localização que seria adotada caso fosse empregada a técnica da viragem. Considerou-se que o erro seria grosseiro se fosse maior que 2 cm. Analisou-se também o tipo de erro mais freqüente (se acima ou abaixo da posição padronizada). Foram incluídos todos pacientes que aceitaram participar...

BACKGROUND: By internationally accepted standardization, the esophageal pH-meter distal sensor is positioned 5 cm above the superior border of the lower esophageal sphincter, identified by esophageal manometry. However, several authors suggest alternative positioning techniques that leave out the manometry; among such techniques, the pH step-up is the one to be pointed out. This subject is controversial; some publications state that the step-up technique is not reliable while some others consider it reliable. AIMS: Considering the existent controversy and the small number of prospective works with suitable sample and methodology, we have idealized the present study, that aims the evaluation of the suitability of the pH-meter distal sensor positioning based on the step-up technique, by analyzing the presence, the type and the degree of the error of positioning that such technique provides and the influence of the position adopted by the patient during the procedure. METHODS: One thousand and thirty one patients conducted to the esophageal pH-meter procedure were studied in a prospective way. During the clinical interview, the demographic data and the presented clinical complaints were registered. All the patients were submitted to both esophageal manometry in order to localize the lower esophageal sphincter and the pH step-up technique, that consists of the introduction of the pH-meter sensor in the gastric chamber and in the sensor's gradual traction until the pH steps up to levels over 4. The step-up point was identified by two distinct ways, characterizing two study groups: with the sitting patient (group I - 450 patients) and with the patient in supine position (group II - 581 patients). After the step-up point identification, the pH-meter distal sensor was placed in the standard position (based on the sphincter manometric placement). It was registered where the pH sensor would be positioned if the step-up technique were adopted. To...

[Comparative prospective study of two positioning modes of 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: by esophageal manometry and by the pH step-up technique]. / Estudo prospectivo comparativo de duas modalidades de posicionamento do sensor de phmetria esofágica prolongada: por manometria esofágica e pela viragem do pH.

BACKGROUND: By internationally accepted standardization, the esophageal pH-meter distal sensor is positioned 5 cm above the superior border of the lower esophageal sphincter, identified by esophageal manometry. However, several authors suggest alternative positioning techniques that leave out the manometry; among such techniques, the pH step-up is the one to be pointed out. This subject is controversial; some publications state that the step-up technique is not reliable while some others consider it reliable. AIMS: Considering the existent controversy and the small number of prospective works with suitable sample and methodology, we have idealized the present study, that aims the evaluation of the suitability of the pH-meter distal sensor positioning based on the step-up technique, by analyzing the presence, the type and the degree of the error of positioning that such technique provides and the influence of the position adopted by the patient during the procedure. METHODS: One thousand and thirty one patients conducted to the esophageal pH-meter procedure were studied in a prospective way. During the clinical interview, the demographic data and the presented clinical complaints were registered. All the patients were submitted to both esophageal manometry in order to localize the lower esophageal sphincter and the pH step-up technique, that consists of the introduction of the pH-meter sensor in the gastric chamber and in the sensor's gradual traction until the pH steps up to levels over 4. The step-up point was identified by two distinct ways, characterizing two study groups: with the sitting patient (group I - 450 patients) and with the patient in supine position (group II - 581 patients). After the step-up point identification, the pH-meter distal sensor was placed in the standard position (based on the sphincter manometric placement). It was registered where the pH sensor would be positioned if the step-up technique were adopted. To evaluate the positioning suitability, the error was considered to be represented by the difference (in centimeters) between the suitable placement (manometry) and the one that would be adopted in case the step-up technique were adopted. The positioning error was considered rough if it were larger than 2 cm. The most frequent type of error was also analyzed (if above or below the standard position). RESULTS: It was observed that if the step-up technique were adopted, there would be error in the sensor positioning in 945 patients (91.6%). In terms of error degree, there would be a rough error in 597 (63.2%) cases. Concerning the type of error, the sensor would be positioned below the standard place in 857 (90.7%) patients. As to the interference of the position adopted by the patient during the step-up technique, it was observed that there was no significant difference among the groups of study in any of the analyzed parameters. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The positioning of the pH-meter distal sensor by the step-up technique is not reliable; 2. the step-up technique provides expressive error margin; 3. the most common type of error that such technique mode provides is the placement of the sensor below the standard positioning, which may overestimate the reflux occurrence; 4. there is no influence in the position adopted by the patient during the pH step-up technique procedure, in terms of method efficiency.