4.1 Article

Endoscopic findings in a cohort of newly diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease patients registered in a UK primary care database

期刊

DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 251-256

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2007.00768.x

关键词

Barrett's esophagus; epidemiology; esophageal stenosis; gastroesophageal reflux; peptic esophagitis; primary health care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may be accompanied by erosive complications that are diagnosed by endoscopy. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of patients newly diagnosed with GERD who are referred for endoscopy, and the factors associated with esophageal endoscopic findings. This study included patients aged 2-79 years with a first recorded diagnosis of GERD in 1996, as identified in a previous cohort study in the UK General Practice Research Database. The rate and results of endoscopy were recorded. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the relationship between a range of factors and endoscopy and its findings. Of the 7159 patients with a new GERD diagnosis, 805 (11%) underwent endoscopy close to the time of first consultation for GERD. Endoscopic findings indicative of esophageal damage were recorded in 73% of these patients. Esophageal endoscopic findings were significantly more likely in males, older patients, and individuals with a history of peptic ulcer disease or gastrointestinal bleeding. Use of acid-suppressive drugs, particularly proton pump inhibitors, was inversely associated with erosive endoscopic findings. Patients with erosive endoscopic findings were more likely to start a new course of treatment with a proton pump inhibitor. In conclusion, relatively few patients are referred for endoscopy close to the first consultation for GERD, and the majority of these individuals have esophageal findings. Male gender, increasing age and a history of bleeding were risk factors for esophageal complications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据