4.5 Article

Differences in oesophageal bolus transit between patients with and without erosive reflux disease

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 40, Issue 5, Pages 348-354

Publisher

PACINI EDITORE
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2007.12.017

Keywords

gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; motor disorders; non-erosive reflux disease; oesophageal impedance; oesophageal manometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. We determined any difference in oesophageal function between reflux patients with and without erosive esophagitis by the application of concurrent manometry and impedance. Methods. Twenty patients with erosive esophagitis, 20 patients with non-erosive reflux disease, and 15 controls were included in this study. All subjects underwent studies with a catheter containing four impedance-measuring segments and five solid-state pressure transducers. Each subject received 10 liquid and 10 viscous boluses to be swallowed. Results. Healthy controls had greater distal oesophageal peristaltic amplitude than both patient groups (p < 0.05). Normal oesophageal peristalsis was found more frequently in healthy controls than either of the patient groups (p < 0.05). Patients with erosive esophagitis exhibited a lower percentage of complete bolus transit compared to healthy controls and non-erosive reflux disease patients (both p < 0.05). Patients with erosive esophagitis had a longer total bolus transit time compared to healthy controls and non-erosive reflux disease patients (both p < 0.05). Conclusions. Erosive esophagitis is characterized by longer oesophageal bolus transit and fewer complete bolus transit than non-erosive reflux disease. The noted differences in oesophageal bolus transit may reflect a continuum of dysfunction secondary to increasing oesophageal mucosal damage. (C) 2008 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available