Evidence Hub

Reflux episodes and esophageal impedance levels in patients with typical and atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Ye BX, Jiang LQ, Lin L, Wang Y, Wang M

Medicine, 2017

110 participants

Abstract

To determine the relationship between baseline impedance levels and gastroesophageal reflux, we retrospectively enrolled 110 patients (54 men and 56 female; mean age, 51 ± 14 years) with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who underwent 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring. Patients were stratified according to symptom (typical or atypical) and reflux types (acid reflux, nonacid reflux [NAR], or no abnormal reflux). Mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) were measured 3 cm (distal esophagus) and 17 cm (proximal esophagus) above the lower esophageal sphincter. Median distal esophageal MNBI was lower in the acid reflux group (1244 Ω; 647-1969 Ω) than in the NAR (2586 Ω; 1368-3666 Ω) or no abnormal reflux groups (3082 Ω; 2495-4472 Ω; all P < .05). Distal MNBI were negatively correlated with DeMeester score and acid exposure time. Atypical symptoms were more frequently associated with NAR than typical symptoms (P < .01). Among patients with positive symptom-association probability (SAP) for NAR, median proximal MNBI tended to be lower in patients with typical symptoms (median, 3013 Ω; IQR, 2535-3410 Ω) than in those with atypical symptoms (median, 3386 Ω; IQR, 3044-3730 Ω, P = .05). Thus, atypical GERD symptoms were more likely to be associated with NAR. The mucosal integrity of the proximal esophagus might be relatively impaired in GERD patients with typical symptoms for NAR.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 110 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free