[Costs of potentially outpatient endoscopic procedures in cases with a 1-day hospital stay versus a longer stay]. / Kosten potenziell ambulant erbringbarer endoskopischer Leistungen in Fällen mit 1-Tages-Verweildauer gegenüber einer längeren Verweildauer.

INTRODUCTION: The transfer of patient care and medical interventions that was previously provided on an inpatient basis to outpatient settings is a stated goal of health politics. It is unclear to what extent costs of an endoscopic procedure and the disease severity depend on the duration of inpatient treatment. We therefore examined whether endoscopic services for cases with a one-day length of stay (VWD) are comparably expensive to cases with a longer VWD. METHODS: Outpatient services were selected from the DGVS service catalog. Day cases with exactly one such gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) service were compared with cases with VWD>1 day regarding their patient clinical complexity levels (PCCL) and mean costs. Data from the DGVS-DRG project with §21-KHEntgG cost data from a total of 57 hospitals from 2018 and 2019 served as the basis. Endoscopic costs were taken from cost center group 8 of the InEK cost matrix and plausibility checked. RESULTS: A total of 122,514 cases with exactly one GAEN service were identified. Statistically equal costs were shown in 30 of 47 service groups. In 10 groups, the cost difference was not relevant (<10%). Cost differences >10% existed only for EGD with variceal therapy, insertion of a self-expanding prosthesis, dilatation/bougienage/exchange with PTC/PTCD in place, non-extensive ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and colonoscopy with submucosal or full thickness resection, or foreign object removal. PCCL differed in all but one group. CONCLUSION: Gastroenterology endoscopy services provided as part of inpatient care but potentially performable on an outpatient basis are predominantly equally expensive for day cases as for patients with a length of stay greater than one day. The disease severity is lower. Calculated §21-KHEntgG cost data thus form a reliable basis for the calculation of appropriate reimbursement for hospital services to be provided as outpatient services under the AOP in the future.

GERD assessment including pH metry predicts a high response rate to PPI standard therapy.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is reported in up to 40%. Patients with non erosive reflux disease (NERD) have lower response rates compared to patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD); pH metry contributes to GERD diagnosis and is critical for proper diagnosis of NERD. Aim of the study was to assess the need for doubling esomeprazole standard dose (40 mg) for 4 weeks in PPI naive patients with typical reflux symptoms and diagnosis of GERD based on endoscopy and 48 hours, wireless pH metry. METHODS: All patients underwent upper GI endoscopy. Symptoms were recorded with a structured questionnaire (RDQ) and acid exposure was determined by 48 hours, wireless pH monitoring (BRAVO). In case of abnormal acid exposure, patients received a short term treatment with esomeprazole 40 mg q.d. for 4 weeks. If symptoms persisted, patients underwent a second pH metry on PPI and the dose was increased to 40 mg b.i.d. RESULTS: 31 consecutive patients with typical reflux symptoms underwent 48 hours pH monitoring. 22 patients (71%) had abnormal acid exposure, 9 patients had normal pH metry (29%). Of the 9 patients with normal pH metry, 2 were found with erosive esophagitis and 7 without endoscopic abnormalities. 24 patients with documented GERD received esomeprazole treatment. 21 patients achieved complete symptom resolution with 40 mg q.d. after 4 weeks (88%). Only 2 patients required doubling the dose of esomeprazole for complete symptom resolution, 1 patient remained with symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with typical reflux symptoms and abnormal acid exposure have a high response rate to standard dose esomeprazole regardless of whether they have ERD or NERD.

Assessment of desmosomal components (desmoglein 1-3, plakoglobin) in cardia mucosa in relation to gastroesophageal reflux disease and Helicobacter pylori infection.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is associated with impaired epithelial barrier function and abnormal expression of proteins forming cell-cell contacts by tight junctions and desmosomes in distal esophageal squamous mucosa. Although gastroesophageal reflux disease and Helicobacter pylori are both associated with chronic inflammation of the adjacent cardia mucosa, it is not known whether these lead to derangements of the desmosomal complexes. Here, we assessed the expression of 4 proteins (plakoglobin and desmoglein 1, 2, and 3) forming epithelial desmosomal complexes by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry in biopsies from 67 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and 23 gastroesophageal reflux disease-negative controls. Plakoglobin and desmoglein 2 were ubiquitously expressed in all samples, whereas desmoglein 1 and 3 were not expressed in cardia mucosa. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was specifically associated with elevated transcript levels of desmoglein 2 and plakoglobin. These were significantly increased from 2.0- to 2.7-fold in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease compared with controls (P < .01), and significantly increased immunohistochemical scores for both proteins were observed (P < .05) as well. The combined presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease and Helicobacter pylori infection had no additional effect on desmosomal gene expression. Taken together, the up-regulation of plakoglobin and desmoglein 2 in cardia mucosa of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease supports the concept that the "transition zone" between distal esophagus and proximal stomach is affected by gastroesophageal reflux disease as well, and architectural and molecular changes in the desmosomal compartment contribute to the pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease in the cardia mucosa.