Intrabolus pressure on high-resolution manometry distinguishes fibrostenotic and inflammatory phenotypes of eosinophilic esophagitis.

The aim of this investigation was to determine the motility patterns of inflammatory and fibrostenotic phenotypes of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) utilizing high-resolution manometry (HRM). Twenty-nine patients with a confirmed diagnosis of EoE according to clinicopathological criteria currently being managed at the Joy McCann Culverhouse Swallowing Center at the University of South Florida were included in the retrospective analysis. Only patients who completed HRM studies were included in the analysis. Patients were classified into inflammatory or fibrostenotic subtypes based on baseline endoscopic evidence. Their baseline HRM studies prior to therapy were analyzed. Manometric data including distal contractile integral, integrated relaxation pressure, and intrabolus pressure (IBP) values were recorded. HRM results were interpreted according to the Chicago Classification system. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software (Version 22, IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). Data were compared utilizing Student's t-test, χ(2) test, Pearson correlation, and Spearman correlation tests. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. A total of 29 patients with EoE were included into the retrospective analysis. The overall average age among patients was 40 years. Male patients comprised 62% of the overall population. Both groups were similar in age, gender, and overall clinical presentation. Seventeen patients (58%) had fibrostenotic disease, and 12 (42%) displayed inflammatory disease. The average IBP for the fibrostenotic and inflammatory groups were 18.6 ± 6.0 mmHg and 12.6 ± 3.5 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.05). Strictures were only seen in the fibrostenotic group. Of the fibrostenotic group, 6 (35%) demonstrated proximal esophageal strictures, 7 (41%) had distal strictures, 3 (18%) had mid-esophageal strictures, and 1 (6%) patient had pan-esophageal strictures. There was no statistically significant correlation between the level of esophageal stricture and degree of IBP. Integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, and other HRM metrics did not demonstrate statistical significance between the two subtypes. There also appeared no statistically significant correlation between patient demographics and esophageal metrics. Patients with the fibrostenotic phenotype of EoE demonstrated an IBP that was significantly higher than that of the inflammatory group.

Case report of proton pump inhibitor responsive esophageal eosinophilia: why 2 months of proton pump inhibitors is required.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease defined by the 2nd EoE consensus panel as: 'symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction, ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field, eosinophilia that persists after a trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, and exclusion of other secondary causes of esophageal eosinophilia'. After Ngo et al. first reported a case series of 3 patients initially diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis responding endoscopically and histologically to PPI therapy, the term PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia has evolved. Several studies have since confirmed the existence of this entity. Although recent ACG guidelines call for a 2-month course of PPI followed by endoscopy biopsies this recommendation is classified as a strong recommendation with 'low evidence', and has not been proven in the literature. We present a case of PPI-REE treated with rabeprazole 20 mg BID for 2 months, and describe simultaneous symptom resolution with histological and endoscopic remission of disease. This unique case with serial endoscopy and histology at baseline and monthly suggests the current recommendation of at least two months therapy with PPIs dosed twice daily is appropriate. Future studies will need to address duration of high dose therapy, whether patients can be stepped down to once a day PPI, and therapeutic strategy for transient responders.

Multinucleated histiocytes in esophageal squamous mucosa secondary to gastroesophageal reflux disease in a patient with esophageal stricture.

We present a novel finding of multinucleated histiocytes associated with acute and chronic inflammation secondary to gastroesophageal reflux in a patient with a history of esophageal stricture, representing the first documented case after a review of the literature. Multinucleated squamous cells, while rare, are a more common finding in association with reactive and inflammatory conditions and have been reported in other areas of the body, such as the vulva, skin, and colon. Esophageal involvement with multinucleated epithelial giant cells appears to be a much less frequently encountered occurrence with only one previous report in the literature. We add to this series an interesting case of esophageal multinucleated giant cells that are histiocytes rather than epithelial cells, supported with positive CD68 immunohistochemical staining. Our patient had severe esophageal dysphagia with stricture with history of food impaction, requiring several dilation sessions to achieve an esophageal luminal diameter of 17 mm. There was marked clinical and endoscopic improvement with proton pump inhibitor and endoscopic therapy. The multinucleated mucosal histiocytes at the time of biopsy were likely due to reactive changes from chronic injury due to food stasis and reflux.

Population-based assessment of heartburn in urban Black Americans.

Prevalence data for heartburn in the urban Black American community is lacking. In order to estimate prevalence for this community, we analyzed data from an ongoing cohort study in progress at our hospital. Comprehensive interviews allowed for exploration of factors associated with heartburn. Complex, stratified sampling design was the method used. Survey invitations are hand-delivered to random blocks in a single zip code tabulation area. One member per eligible household is invited to complete a computer-based survey. Heartburn was defined as ≥ 3 days/week of symptoms as defined by the Montreal Definition and Classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scaling and weighting factors were utilized to estimate population level prevalence. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictor variables for heartburn. Enrolled 379 participants corresponding to a weighted sample size of 22,409 (20,888-23,930) citizens. Demographic characteristics of the sample closely matched those of the entire targeted population. Overall, the weighted prevalence of heartburn ≥ 3 times per week was 17.6% (16.4-18.8%). Variables independently associated with heartburn were body mass index, daily caloric and fat intake, diabetes mellitus (odds ratio = 2.95; 2.59-3.36), cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption (odds ratio = 2.55; 2.25-2.89). Factors inversely associated included illicit drug use and increased physical activity. Waist : hip ratio showed no relationship. The prevalence of heartburn ≥ 3 times per week is high in the Black American community. Adverse lifestyle behaviors showed particularly important associations. Our study needs to be replicated in other communities with similar demographics.

Utilization of wireless pH monitoring technologies: a summary of the proceedings from the esophageal diagnostic working group.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be difficult to diagnose - symptoms alone are often not enough, and thus, objective testing is often required. GERD is a manifestation of pathologic levels of reflux into the esophagus of acidic, nonacidic, and/or bilious gastric content. However, in our current evidence-based knowledge approach, we only have reasonable outcome data in regards to acid reflux, as this particular type of refluxate predictably causes symptoms and mucosal damage, which improves with medical or surgical therapy. While there are data suggesting that nonacid reflux may be responsible for ongoing symptoms despite acid suppression in some patients, outcome data about this issue are limited. Therefore, this working group believes that it is essential to confirm the presence of acid reflux in patients with 'refractory' GERD symptoms or extraesophageal symptoms thought to be caused by gastroesophageal reflux before an escalation of antireflux therapy is considered. If patients do not have pathologic acid reflux off antisecretory therapy, they are unlikely to have clinically significant nonacid or bile reflux. Patients who do not have pathologic acid gastroesophageal reflux parameters on ambulatory pH monitoring then: (i) could attempt to discontinue antisecretory medications like proton pump inhibitors and H2-receptor antagonists (which are expensive and which carry risks - i.e. C. diff, etc.); (ii) may undergo further evaluation for other causes of their esophageal symptoms (e.g. functional heartburn or chest pain, eosinophilic esophagitis, gastroparesis, achalasia, other esophageal motor disorders); and (iii) can be referred to an ear, nose, and throat/pulmonary/allergy physician for assessment of non-GERD causes of their extraesophageal symptoms.

Trends and perioperative outcomes of inpatient antireflux surgery in the United States, 1993-2006.

Antireflux surgery is an effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease, but postoperation complications and durability may be problematic. The objective of the study was to determine whether inpatient antireflux surgery continued to decline in the United States due to concerns about its long-term effectiveness and the popularity of gastric bypass surgery and to assess recent changes in its perioperative outcomes. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified adult patients undergoing inpatient antireflux surgery during 1993-2006 and compared the trends of inpatient antireflux surgery with inpatient gastric bypass surgery. Perioperative complications included laceration, splenectomy, transfusion, esophageal dilation, total parenteral nutrition, and infection. Inpatient antireflux surgery increased from 9173 in 1993 to 32 980 in 2000 (+260%) but then decreased to 19 668 in 2006 (-40%). Compared with 2000, patients undergoing inpatient antireflux surgery in 2006 were older (49.9 ± 32.4 vs. 54.6 ± 33.6 years) and had a longer length of stay (3.1 ± 10.0 vs. 3.7 ± 13.4 days), more complications (4.7% vs. 6.1%), and higher mortality (0.26% vs. 0.54%) (all P < 0.05). Compared with inpatient gastric bypass surgery, length of stay was longer and mortality was higher for inpatient antireflux surgery in 2006, but neither was significant controlling for age. In 2006, perioperative outcomes of inpatient antireflux surgery were better in high-volume hospitals (all P < 0.01). Inpatient antireflux surgery continued to decline in the United States from 2000 to 2006, concomitant with a dramatic increase in inpatient gastric bypass surgery. Older patient age and worsening perioperative outcomes for inpatient antireflux surgery suggest increased medical complexity and possibly a larger share of reoperations over time. Designating centers of excellence for antireflux surgery based on local expertise may improve outcomes.

Esophageal dilation: simple and effective treatment for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis and esophageal rings and narrowing.

The goal of this article is to present the results of the long-term treatment with esophageal dilation of a consecutive series of adults with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). EoE in adults is a disease of middle aged white males, with recurrent food impactions and dysphagia. The exact treatment of EoE is unknown due to the uncertainty of the pathogenesis. Currently, the long-term follow-up of adult EoE patients is limited. Sixteen consecutive adult patients (12 males/4 females between ages 27 and 58 years) with EoE underwent a detailed history and baseline upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) with multiple esophageal biopsies. Thirteen had esophageal dilation. Fifteen were on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. After dilation, one patient was treated with a restrictive diet. One patient took prn fluticasone. Most of the patients had allergy testing for food and aeroallergens. Follow-up evaluation with similar testing was on average 22 months (range: 12-40 months). Six patients were not available for follow-up. None of the remaining 10 patients had a food impaction; one required further esophageal dilation. Only two patients had intermittent dysphagia. The average dysphagia score decreased from 2.1 to 0.3 (P < 0.002). The average number of eosinophils at follow-up was not significantly different from baseline (120 eosinophils/HPF proximally and 165 eosinophils/HPF distally (P= 0.75). The gross endoscopy findings were unchanged in all patients except one who normalized. A total of 62% and 75% of patients had positive tests for aeroallergens and food allergens, respectively. Over an average of two years, esophageal dilation provided excellent symptomatic relief among 10 adult EoE patients despite no improvement in the mucosal eosinophilia or gross endoscopic appearance.

High-resolution solid-state manometry of the antropyloroduodenal region.

Manometric recording from the pyloric channel is challenging and is usually performed with a sleeve device. Recently, a solid-state manometry system was developed, which incorporates 36 circumferential pressure sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals. Our aim was to use this system to determine whether it provided useful manometric measurements of the pyloric region. We recruited 10 healthy subjects (7 males:3 females). The catheter (ManoScan(360)) was introduced transnasally and, in the final position, 15-20 sensors were in the stomach and the remainder distributed across the pylorus and duodenum. Patients were recorded fasting and then given a meal and recorded postprandially. Using pressure data and isocontour plots, the pylorus was identified in all subjects. Mean pyloric width was 2.1 +/- 0.1 cm (95% CI: 1.40-2.40). Basal pyloric pressure during phase I was 9.4 +/- 1.1 mmHg, while basal antral pressure was significantly lower (P = 0.003; 95% CI: 2.4-8.4). Pyloric pressure was always elevated relative to antral pressure in phase I. For phases II and III, pyloric pressure was 7.7 +/- 2.3 mmHg and 9.4 +/- 1.1 mmHg, respectively. Pyloric pressure increased similarly after both the liquid and solid meal. In addition, isolated pressure events and waves, which involve the pylorus, were readily identified.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative effectiveness of topical steroids vs. PPIs for the treatment of the spectrum of eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy surrounds the clinical and histological response to topical steroids in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). AIM: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to assess the efficacy of topical steroids compared with placebo or proton pump inhibitor (PPIs) for the management of eosinophilic oesophagitis. METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE from inception to 1 July 2015 was searched. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A network meta-analysis was performed using the Bayesian methods under random-effects multiple treatment comparisons. Results were summarised as odds ratio along with credibility intervals. We also calculated the ranking probability for each treatment based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: The overall methodological quality of included studies was low. SUCRA ranking probability indicated that PPI had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving histological remission and mean change in eosinophils (0.81 and 0.85, respectively), followed by budesonide (0.74 and 0.63, respectively) and fluticasone (0.5 and 0.5, respectively). None of the comparisons indicated a statistically signicant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The results from network meta-analysis show that there is no statistically significant difference between PPI, budesonide and fluticasone for the treatment of EoE as assessed by the histological and clinical response. The evidence is limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision, which emphasises the urgent need for large RCTs with adequate sample size and methodological rigour to provide conclusive evidence.

Review article: the management of heartburn in pregnancy.

Heartburn is a normal consequence of pregnancy. The predominant aetiology is a decrease in lower oesophageal sphincter pressure caused by female sex hormones, especially progesterone. Serious reflux complications during pregnancy are rare; hence upper endoscopy and other diagnostic tests are infrequently needed. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease during pregnancy should be managed with a step-up algorithm beginning with lifestyle modifications and dietary changes. Antacids or sucralfate are considered the first-line drug therapy. If symptoms persist, any of the histamine2-receptor antagonists can be used. Proton pump inhibitors are reserved for women with intractable symptoms or complicated reflux disease. All but omeprazole are FDA category B drugs during pregnancy. Most drugs are excreted in breast milk. Of systemic agents, only the histamine2-receptor antagonists, with the exception of nizatidine, are safe to use during lactation.

Review article: extraoesophageal manifestations of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Although recent studies suggest that gastro-oesophageal reflux disease may frequently contribute to ear, nose and throat and respiratory diseases, the cause-and-effect relationship is far from proven. The review will address this controversial topic emphasizing recent literature raising concerns about the credibility of this association and our tests to make this diagnosis. The author believes these extraoesophageal symptoms suspected to be secondary to gastro-oesophageal reflux disease are an unresolved issue, but selective use of aggressive proton-pump inhibitor therapeutic trials may help to resolve this problem in our individual patients.

The prevalence of abnormal esophageal test results in patients with cardiovascular disease and unexplained chest pain.

The purpose of our study was to assess the prevalence of esophageal test abnormalities in patients with known cardiovascular disease and persistent chest pain. We performed a retrospective review of symptoms, manometry, and provocative test results performed on patients with undiagnosed chest pain. The 220 patients with angiographically determined cardiac disease and persistent chest pain were divided into three groups: coronary artery disease (125 patients), mitral valve prolapse (38 patients), and coronary bypass/angioplasty (57 patients). A comparison group consisted of 159 patients with noncardiac chest pain. All patients underwent esophageal manometry and placebo-controlled provocative testing (acid perfusion test and edrophonium chloride test). The prevalence of esophageal motility disorders in the noncardiac chest pain group (27%) was similar to that in the coronary artery disease (24%), mitral valve prolapse (37%), and coronary bypass/angioplasty (30%) groups. The frequency of nutcracker esophagus (11% to 16%) and diffuse esophageal spasm (2% to 7%) was remarkably constant. The prevalence of any positive provocative result in the noncardiac chest pain group (27%) was similar to that in the coronary artery disease (19%), mitral valve prolapse (32%), and coronary bypass/angioplasty (20%) groups. Furthermore, completely negative results of esophageal investigation occurred in 55%, 62%, 42%, and 59% of the respective patient groups.

Efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of symptomatic acid reflux disease without esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Up to three quarters of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have symptoms, such as heartburn, but no macroscopic evidence of erosive esophagitis, making symptomatic GERD a common clinical problem in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of omeprazole, 20 mg once daily; omeprazole, 10 mg once daily; and placebo in the treatment of symptomatic GERD without erosive esophagitis. METHODS: Patients with a history of heartburn (> or =12 months) and episodes of moderate to severe heartburn on 4 or more of the 7 days before endoscopy were eligible to participate in this 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The absence of erosive esophagitis was established through endoscopy. Eligible patients were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: omeprazole, 20 mg once daily; omeprazole, 10 mg once daily; or placebo. Patients were assessed at weeks 2 and 4. The efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of heartburn was determined mainly through the following diary card data: daily resolution of heartburn and complete resolution of heartburn every day during 1 week of treatment. The efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of acid regurgitation, dysphagia, epigastric pain, and nausea was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 359 randomized patients, 355 were included in the statistical analysis (intention-to-treat population). Daily proportions of patients with no heartburn were consistently greater in the 20-mg omeprazole group (62%, day 7; 74%, day 27) than in the 10-mg omeprazole group (41%, day 7; 49%, day 27) or the placebo group (14%, day 7; 23%; day 27). Complete resolution of heartburn every day during the last treatment week was significantly (P< or =.002) higher in the 20-mg omeprazole group (48%) than in the 10-mg omeprazole (27%) or placebo (5%) group. Omeprazole was significantly (P< or =.003) more effective than placebo for the treatment of acid regurgitation, dysphagia, epigastric pain, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic GERD require profound acid suppression to achieve symptomatic relief. Omeprazole, 20 mg once daily, was superior to omeprazole, 10 mg once daily, and to placebo in providing early and sustained resolution of heartburn, as well as treatment of other troublesome GERD symptoms.

Lansoprazole compared with ranitidine for the treatment of nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, proton pump inhibitors are used primarily for patients with esophagitis. However, patients with nonerosive reflux disease may also benefit from these powerful medications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and symptom relief efficacy of lansoprazole with ranitidine therapy and with placebo. METHODS: In 2 randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials of 901 patients with symptomatic reflux disease, which was confirmed by endoscopy to be nonerosive, received lansoprazole, 15 or 30 mg once daily; ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily; or placebo for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Analysis of daily diary data during the first 4 weeks and for the entire 8 weeks of treatment revealed that patients who were treated with either dosage of lansoprazole reported significantly (P<.05) lower percentages of days and nights with heartburn, less pain severity of both day and night heartburn, fewer days of antacid use, and smaller amounts of antacid use compared with patients who were treated with ranitidine or placebo. The incidence of possible or probable treatment-related adverse reactions was comparable among the treatment groups; abdominal pain and diarrhea were the most commonly reported adverse events. No statistically significant differences were noted between treatment groups in laboratory analyses. CONCLUSION: Lansoprazole therapy is more effective than standard dosages of ranitidine or placebo in relieving symptoms in patients with endoscopically confirmed non-erosive reflux esophagitis.

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

A group of experts from gastroenterology, internal medicine, health economics, medical outcomes, and managed care met in San Francisco, Calif, on September 27, 1994, in an effort to develop clinically and economically effective disease management guidelines to assist physicians in their treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a managed care environment. This article represents a consensus opinion based on the evidence and expert interpretation at the time of that meeting.

Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

Extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux may be best diagnosed using ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring. This test involves the placemenmt of a thin pH probe in the esophagus, which is connected to a small box on a waistbelt. Studies are done in an ambulatory state in the patient's home and work environment. Data collected assesses acid exposure time over the circadian cycle and the relationship of symptoms to pH drops. Studies in adult asthmatics demonstrate abnormal amounts of acid reflux by 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring in >50% of patients. Likewise, large studies in patients with chronic ENT complaints find abnormal acid reflux values in 50-80% of patients. Several problems and issues with ambulatory pH monitoring still need addressing, including (1) the need for dual pH monitoring, (2) artifact and reproducibility, (3) normal values, (4) role in the initial diagnosis, and (5) role in the follow-up of poorly responding patients.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and asthma: the two are directly related.

GERD and asthma have met the three criteria set out to prove a relationship between the two diseases. Patients with GERD have a higher prevalence of asthma, and there are several pathophysiologic mechanisms by which acid reflux can cause bronchospasm. Furthermore, aggressive antireflux therapy in patients with asthma and GERD results in improvements in asthma outcome in as many as 70% to 80% of patients treated in both medical and surgical series. Nevertheless, there are design flaws in many of the outcome studies performed to date. To further clarify this issue, future studies should be multicentered and placebo controlled using acid-suppressive therapy for at least 3 to 6 months with documentation of asthma outcome, cost analysis, and quality-of-life assessment. As with many things in medicine, all the data are not consistent. However, I strongly believe that the available data support the aggressive search for GERD and treatment in any patient with difficult-to-control asthma.

Overview of diagnostic testing for chest pain of unknown origin.

Identifying the cause of recurrent chest pain may be difficult. Significant coronary artery disease must be excluded before patients can be assured that their symptoms are truly "noncardiac." A normal coronary angiogram is the most definitive test but this may not preclude the presence of a new "fly in the ointment," i.e., microvascular angina. Musculoskeletal pain syndromes, psychological problems, and esophageal disorders, including both esophageal motility disorders and gastroesophageal reflux disease, are the most common causes of noncardiac chest pain. Nearly 30% of these patients will have an esophageal motility disorder, although its clinical relevance in the asymptomatic patient is controversial. Simple, inexpensive, provocation tests (most commonly edrophonium, bethanechol, and/or balloon distention) have been developed to recreate motility-related chest pain in the laboratory. These tests can identify the esophagus as the source of pain, but in most cases they do not direct therapy. Other disadvantages of provocation tests include the lack of a gold standard reference point, side effects, and the need for placebo because of a subjective end point. Recently, ambulatory esophageal pH and pressure monitoring have been used to define precisely the cause of esophageal chest pain. These systems can record multiple episodes of pain for up to 24 hours in an outpatient setting and have shown that gastroesophageal reflux (rather than motility disorders) is the most common esophageal cause of pain. However, these studies also suggest that many episodes of chest pain do not have an identifiable esophageal cause. Furthermore, this equipment is expensive, uncomfortable, may alter normal activity, and is not useful in patients having infrequent pain episodes. Psychological disturbances should be carefully sought in any patient with noncardiac chest pain: Many patients have anxiety, depression, or panic attacks that may complicate or contribute to their reported symptoms. It is questionable if these patients need additional testing. Rather, the challenge of the future is to prove that the multitude of tests aid in the overall treatment and outcome of patients with noncardiac chest pain.

Duodenogastroesophageal reflux and methods to monitor nonacidic reflux.

The role of duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER), once erroneously termed "bile reflux," in causing esophageal mucosal damage has been an area of interest in both animal and human studies. However, because of the lack of appropriate techniques to accurately measure DGER, extrapolation of findings from animal studies to humans has been difficult to make. The recent advent of the Bilitec system (Metronics Instruments, Minneapolis, MN), an ambulatory bilirubin monitoring device, is increasing our knowledge of the specific role of DGER in esophageal diseases. Studies suggest that DGER without acid reflux may result in symptoms, but unless acid reflux is present simultaneously, it does not cause esophagitis. Therefore, therapies should aim at reducing both DGER and acid reflux. Studies show that this may be accomplished by antireflux surgery or the use of proton pump inhibitors, which by reducing gastric volume, decrease the damaging potential of both acid and DGER.

Prolonged ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring in the evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a common problem that frequently presents with atypical complaints including nausea, hiccups, globus sensation, chest pain, hoarseness, coughing, or various pulmonary complaints. Diagnosis may be difficult, as these patients often do not have radiographic or endoscopic evidence of esophagitis. In these difficult cases, prolonged esophageal pH monitoring provides an accurate method of quantitating acid reflux parameters and correlating symptoms with reflux episodes in an outpatient setting. Current equipment is compact, durable, and not difficult to use or extremely expensive. Data analysis, with a particular emphasis on acid-exposure time (total, upright, supine), reliably discriminates between abnormal and normal subjects but it is not a perfect "gold standard" for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Indications for esophageal pH monitoring include: (1) atypical symptoms of acid reflux with normal endoscopy, (2) typical reflux symptoms unresponsive to medical therapy, and (3) the follow-up of reflux disease after either medical or surgical therapy. This test is currently performed primarily by gastroenterologists, but we believe many other groups may find this technology helpful. To meet these expanding applications, test refinements are necessary, particularly easier methods of placing the pH probe and better standards for defining abnormal pH parameters in older patients. The future for esophageal pH monitoring is bright. This technology has the potential to do for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease what endoscopy has done for the diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease.