Suárez ME, Pérez y LN, Cedillo LI, Hernández RC, Raña GR, López OJ, Cárdenas LE

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 12-16
PDF size: 111.55 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The presence of heartburn and regurgitation without endoscopic evidence of esophageal mucosal damage is defined as non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (NERD). According to the pHmetry results it can be subsequently divided in pathological reflux, functional heartburn and sensitive esophagus. The exact prevalence of these variants is unknown in Mexico. To document the statistical casuistry of the different groups and their demographic variants we make this study. Material and methods: Every pHmetry performed between November 1998 and May 2005 in the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory in patients with negative endoscopy was reviewed. The groups were divided into: pathological reflux (pathological acid exposure); visceral hypersensitivity of the esophagus (physiological acid exposure with a positive value of probability of associated symptoms) and functional heartburn (physiologic acid exposure with a negative value of probability of associated symptoms). The demographic characteristics were analyzed (age and gender). Results: 164 patients were included. The mean age was 41.1 years; 64.6% were females and 35.4% male. The frequency of pathological reflux was 50%, 22.5% had visceral hypersensitivity of the esophagus, and 27.4% had functional heartburn. There was no statistical difference when gender was considered. When the groups were compared by age, we found pathological reflux was more frequent in patients between 41 and 50 years, functional heartburn between 51 and 60 years, and visceral cuahypersentitivity of the esophagus between 21 and 40 years. Conclusions: The NERD group is heterogenous, 50% have pathological reflux, while the rest is divided between functional heartburn and visceral hypersensitivity of the esophagus. There was no statistical difference when gender was considered, but we found a difference when the age groups were compared.

REFERENCES

1. Locke GR III, Talley NJ, Fett SL. Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: A population based study in Olmstead County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1448-1456.

2. Delaney BC. Prevalence and epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Alim Pharm Ther 2004; 20: 8.

3. Fass R. Nonerosive reflux disease. Medsc Gen Med 2001; 3 (1).

4. Fass R. Epidemiology and pathophysiology of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2003, 98 (suppl): S2-S7.

5. Johnson LR, De Meester TR. Twenty-four hour pH monitoring of distal esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1974; 62: 325-332.

6. Fass R, Fenerty B, Vakil N. Non erosive reflux diseasecurrent concepts and dilemmas. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 303-314.

7. Tack J, Fass R. Approaches to endoscopic negative reflux disease: Part of the GERD spectrum or a unique acid-related disorder? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 19 (supp 1): 28-34.

8. Fass R. Epidemiology and pathophysiology of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98 (suppl 3): S2-S7.

9. Fass R, Tougas G. Functional Heartburn: the stimulus, the pain and the brain. Gut 2002; 51: 885-892.

10. Valdovinos MA, Soto JC, Schmulson MJ. Frequency of different subgroups of patients with non erosive reflux disease (NERD) according to esophageal acid exposure and sympton index. Gastroenterology 2003; 124 (suppl 1): 538.

11. Carmona R, Solana S, Esmer D. La prevalencia de los diferentes grupos que integran la enfermedad por reflujo con endoscopia negativa. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2005; 70 (1).

12. Martinez SD, Malagon IB, Garewall HS, Fass R. Non erosive reflux disease (NERD). Is it really just a mild form of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)? Gastroenterology 2001; 120 (5) suppl 1: A-424

13. Nassi A, Moraes JPP, Zilberstein B. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: Clinical, endoscopic and intraluminal esophageal pH monitoring evaluation. Dis Esoph 2001; 14 (1): 41.