Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 597–602

Role of Esophageal Function Tests in Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

  • Marco G. Patti
  • Urs Diener
  • Andrea Tamburini
  • Daniela Molena
  • Lawrence W. Way
Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

Clinicians typically make the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) from the clinical findings and then prescribe acid-suppressing drugs. Endoscopy is usually done for persistent or severe symptoms. Esophageal function tests (EFTs: esophageal manometry and 24-hr pH monitoring) are generally reserved for patients who have the most severe disease, including those being considered for surgery. We hypothesized that EFTs are more accurate than symptoms and endoscopy in the diagnosis of GERD. This was a retrospective study undertaken in a university tertiary care center. Between October 1989 and November 1998, 822 patients with a clinical diagnosis of GERD (based on symptoms and endoscopic findings) were referred for EFTs. The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether the 24-hr pH monitoring score showed GERD (group A, GERD; group B, GERD+). The groups were compared with respect to the incidence and severity of symptoms, presence of a hiatal hernia on barium x-rays, presence and severity of esophagitis on endoscopy, and esophageal motility. In all, 247 patients (30%) had normal reflux scores (group A, GERD), and 575 patients (70%) had abnormal scores (Group B, GERD+). Eighty percent of group A and 88% of group B had been treated with acid-suppressing medications. The incidence of heartburn and regurgitation was similar in the two groups. Grade I–II esophagitis was diagnosed by endoscopy in 25% of group A and 35% of group B, and grade III esophagitis in 4% of group A and 11% of group B. Esophageal manometry showed that group B more often had esophageal dysmotility, consisting of a hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter and abnormal esophageal peristalsis. These data show that: (1) symptoms were unreliable for diagnosing GERD; (2) endoscopic evidence of grade I–II esophagitis was diagnostically nonspecific, and grade III was much less certain than claimed in other reports; and (3) pH monitoring identified patients with GERD and stratified them according to the severity of the disease. We conclude that esophageal manometry and pH monitoring are important in diagnosing GERD accurately. More liberal use of these tests early in patient management would avoid much improper and costly medical therapy and would help single out for special attention the patients with GERD who have the most severe disease.

gastroesophageal reflux disease esophageal manometry 24-hour pH monitoring esophagogastroduodenoscopy barium swallow heartburn 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFRENCES

  1. 1.
    Fennerty MB, Castell D, Fendrick AM, Halpern M, Johnson D, Kahrilas PJ, Leiberman D, Richter JE, Sampliner RE: The diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a managed care environment. Suggested disease management guidelines. Arch Intern Med 156:477–484, 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sonnenberg A, Delco F, El-Serag HB: Empirical therapy versus diagnostic tests in gastroesophageal reflux disease. A medical decision analysis. Dig Dis Sci 43:1001–1008, 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armstrong D, Monnier P, Nicolet M, Blum Al, Savary M: The “MUSE” system. In The Esophageal Mucosa. R Giuli, GNJ Tygat, TR DeMeester, JP Galmiche (eds). New York, Elsevier, 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jamieson JR, Stein HJ, DeMeester TR, Bonavina L, Schwizer W, Hinder RA, Albertucci M: Ambulatory 24-H esophageal pH monitoring: Normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Am J Gastroenterol 87:1102–1111, 1992Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costantini M, Crookes PF, Bremner RM, Hoeft SF, Ehsan A, Peters JH, Bremner CG, DeMeester TR: Value of physiologic assessment of foregut symptoms in a surgical practice. Surgery 114:780–786, 1993Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klauser AG, Schindlbeck NE, Müller-Lissner SA: Symptoms in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Lancet 335:205–208, 1990Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnsson F, Joelsson B, Gudmundsson K, Greiff L: Symptoms and endoscopic findings in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 22:714–718, 1987Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuchs KH, DeMeester TR, Albertucci M: Specificity and sensitivity of objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surgery 102:575–580, 1987Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richter JE: Typical and atypical presentations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The role of esophageal testing in diagnosis and management. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 25:75–102, 1996Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bytzer P, Havelund T, Møller Hansen J: Interobserver variation in the endoscopic diagnosis of reflux esophagitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 28:119–125, 1993Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tefera L, Fein M, Ritter MP, Bremner CG, Crookes PF, Peters JH, Hagen JA, DeMeester TR: Can the combination of symptoms and endoscopy confirm the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease? Am Surg 63:933–936, 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiener GJ, Morgan TM, Copper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO, Sinclair JW, Richter JE: Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. Reproducibility and variability of pH parameters. Dig Dis Sci 33:1127–1133, 1988Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richter JE, Castell DO: Gastroesophageal reflux. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy. Ann Intern Med 97:93–103, 1982Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patti MG, Debas HT, Pellegrini CA: Clinical and functional characterization of high gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Surg 165:163–168, 1993Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harding SM, Guzzo MR, Richter JE: 24-h esophageal pH testing in asthmatics. Respiratory symptom correlation with esophageal acid events. Chest 115:654–659, 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patti MG, Arcerito M, Tamburini A, Feo CV, Safadi B, Way LW: Effect of laparoscopic fundoplication on GERD-induced respiratory symptoms. J Gastrointest Surg 4:143–149, 2000Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fouad YM, Katz PO, Hatlebakk JG, Castell DO: Ineffective esophageal motility: The most common motility abnormality in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 94:1464–1467, 1999Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Monnier P, Ollyo J-B, Fontolliet C, Savary M: Epidemiology and natural history of reflux esophagitis. Sem Lap Surg 2:2–9, 1995Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crookes PF, DeMeester TR: The diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a managed care environment. A surgeon's response. Arch Surg 131:1021–1023, 1996Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patti MG, Arcerito M, Feo CV, Worth S, De Pinto M, Gibbs VC, Gantert W, Tyrrell D, Ferrell LF, Way LW: Barrett's esophagus: A surgical disease. J Gastrointest Surg 3:397–404, 1999Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ortiz A, Martinez de Haro LF, Parrilla P, Morales G, Molina J, Bermejo J, Liron R, Aguilar J: Conservative treatment versus antireflux surgery in Barrett's oesophagus: Long-term results of a prospective study. Br J Surg 83:274–278, 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco G. Patti
  • Urs Diener
  • Andrea Tamburini
  • Daniela Molena
  • Lawrence W. Way

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations