Entrar/Registro  
HOME SPANISH
 
Revista Médica MD
   
MENU

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board






>Journals >Revista Médica MD >Year 2013, Issue 2


Velarde-Ruiz-Velasco JA, Rodríguez-Chávez JL, González-Rodríguez CI, Mora-Huerta JA
Diagnostic guide for gastroesophageal reflux disease
Rev Med MD 2013; 4.5 (2)

Language: Espańol
References: 30
Page: 87-93
PDF: 624.04 Kb.

[Full text - PDF]

ABSTRACT

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is defined as the rise of gastric or gastro-duodenal content above gastroesophageal junction which can cause bothersome symptoms and/ or structural damage, which can impact quality of life and wellbeing of patients suffering from it. Worldwide prevalence ranges from 10 to 20% and it seems to be rising, probably due to factors like and overall increase of over weight and obesity in general population. Three phenotypic types of GERD have been described: 1. Non erosive GERD (NERD) defines as the presents of symptomatology and absence of erosions of the mucous layer of the esophagus as demonstrated by white light endoscopy; 2. Erosive GERD, in which superficial erosive damage or rupture of esophageal mucous layer can be visualized by white light endoscopy; 3. Barrett's esophagus, defined as specialized intestinal metaplasia in the esophagus. Diagnosis of GERD is suggestive when the typical symptoms of pyrosis and regurgitation are present; however these findings do not have diagnostic certainty in some patients, which is why it has been proposed that GERD diagnoses be made with both the combination of symptoms, objective endoscopy testing, ambulatory reflux monitoring and response to anti-secretory treatment. Upper digestive tract endoscopy is not necessarily required in the presence of typical symptoms of GERD and is only recommended when signs of alarm are present or in patients who have high risk of presenting complications. Ambulatory monitoring of GERD is preferred prior to considering endoscopic or surgical therapy in patients with NERD, as well part of evaluation of patient not responding to therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and in cases in which GERD diagnosis is not certain.


Key words: Barret, endoscopy, impedance, pyrosis, pH metry, reflux.


REFERENCES

  1. 1.Vakil N, Zanten S, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R. The Montreal Definition and Classification of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Global Evidence-Based Consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1900–1920.

  2. 2.Huerta-Iga F, Tamayo-de la Cuesta JL, Noble-Lugo A, Remes-Troche JM, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology Mexican association consensus. Mexican group for the GERD study. Rev Gastroenterol Mex. 2012.

  3. 3.Katz PO, Gerson LB, MD, Vela MF. Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108:308 – 328.

  4. 4.Gerson LB, Kahrilas PJ , Fass R . Insights into gastroesophageal reflux disease associated dyspeptic symptoms. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 824 – 33.

  5. 5.Corley DA, Kubo A. Body mass index and gastroesophageal refl ux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2619 – 28.

  6. 6.Hampel H, Abraham NS, El-Serag HB. Metaanalysis: obesity and the risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143: 199 – 211.

  7. 7.López-Colombo A, Morgan D, Bravo-González D, et al. The epidemiology of functional gastrointestinal disorders in Mexico: a population-based study. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012; 2012:606174

  8. 8.Modlin, I. M. y cols. Diagnosis and management of non-erosive reflux disease—The Vevey NERD Consensus Group. Digestion 80, 74–88 (2009)

  9. 9.Martínez, S. D. et al. Non-erosive reflux disease (NERD)—acid reflux and symptom patterns. Aliment. Pharmacol Ther 17, 537–545 (2003).

  10. 10.Savarino E. et al. NERD: An umbrella term including heterogeneous subpopulations. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 10, 371–380 (2013)

  11. 11.Moayyedi P, Talley NJ, Fennerty MB, et al. Can the clinical history distinguish between organic and functional dyspepsia? JAMA 2006 ; 295 : 1566 – 76

  12. Sha heen NJ. Upper Endoscopy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Best Practice Advice from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157:808-816.

  13. 13.Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA, et al. Epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal disease: a systematic review. Gut 2005;54:710–7.

  14. 14.Richter JE. How to manage refractory GERD. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;4:658–64.

  15. 15.Vela MF, Camacho-Lobato L, Srinivasan R, et al. Intraesophageal Impedance and pH measurement of acid and non-acid reflux: effect of omeprazole. Gastroenterology 2001; 120:1599–606.

  16. 16.Mainie I, Tutuian R, Shay S, et al. Acid and non-acid reflux in patients with persistent symptoms despite acid suppressive therapy: a multicenter study using combined ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring. Gut 2006; 55:1398–402.

  17. 17.Sifrim D, Castell D, Dent J, et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas reflux. Gut 2004;53:1024–31.

  18. 18.Pandolino JE, Vela MF. Esophageal reflux monitoring. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69:917–30.

  19. 19.Silny J. Intraluminal multiple electric impedance procedure for measurement of gastrointestinal motility. J Gastrointest Motil 1991;3:151–62.

  20. 20.Fass J, Silny J, Braun J, et al. Measuring esophageal motility with a new intraluminal impedance device. First clinical results in reflux patients. Scand J Gastroenterol1994;29:693–702.

  21. 21.Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, Timmer R, et al. Reproducibility of multichannel intraluminal electrical impedance monitoring of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:265–9.

  22. 22.Shay S, Tutuian R, Sifrim D, et al. Twenty-four hour ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring: a multicenter report of normal values from 60 healthy volunteers. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1037–43.

  23. 23.Zerbib F, des Varannes SB, Roman S, et al. Normal values and day-to-day variability of 24-h ambulatory esophageal impedance-pH monitoring in a Belgian- French cohort of healthy subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;22:1011–21. 24.Wiener GJ, Richter JE, Cooper JB, et al. The symptom index: a clinically important parameter of ambulatory

  24. 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 1988;86:358–61.

  25. 25.Weusten BL, Roelofs JM, Akkermans LM, et al. The symptom association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology 1994;107:1741–5.

  26. 26.Roman S, Bruley des Varannes S, Pouderoux P, et al. Ambulatory 24-h oesophageal impedance-pH recordings: reliability of automatic analysis for gastrooesophageal reflux assessment. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2006;18:978–86.

  27. Loots CM, van Wijk MP, Blondeau K, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in pHimpedance analysis between 10 experts and automated analysis. J Pediatr 2012;160:441–6.

  28. 28.Boeckxstaens GE, Smout A. Systematic review: role of acid, weakly acidic and weakly alkaline reflux in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;32:334–43.

  29. 29.Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, Sifrim D, et al. Aerophagia, gastric, and supragastric belching: a study using intraluminal electrical impedance monitoring. Gut 2004;53:1561–5.

  30. 30.Hemmink GH, Ten Cate L, Bredenoord AJ, et al. Speech therapy in patients with excessive supragastric belching—a pilot study. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010; 22:24–8.






>Journals >Revista Médica MD >Year 2013, Issue 2
 

· Journal Index 
· Links 
       
Copyright 2010