Search

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Gastroesophageal reflux is considered a common condition, but detailed population-based data on reflux in the United States are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux in Olmsted County, Minnesota. METHODS:A reliable and valid self-report questionnaire was mailed to an age- and sex-stratified random sample of 2200 Olmsted County residents aged 25-74 years. RESULTS:The prevalence per 100 of heartburn and/or acid regurgitation experienced at least weekly was 19.8 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 17.7-21.9). Heartburn and acid regurgitation were associated with noncardiac chest pain (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 2.9-6.0), dysphagia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.9-7.4), dyspepsia (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-5.0), and globus sensation (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.6) but not with asthma, hoarseness, bronchitis, or a history of pneumonia. Among subjects with reflux symptoms, 1.0% reported an episode of hematemesis and 1.3% had a past esophageal dilatation. CONCLUSIONS:Symptoms of reflux are common among white men and women who are 25-74 years of age. Heartburn and acid regurgitation are significantly associated with chest pain, dysphagia, dyspepsia, and globus sensation. The percentage of patients reporting complications is low, but the absolute number is probably considerable given the high prevalence of the condition in the community. (Gastroenterology 1997 May;112(5):1448-56)

It has been proposed that patients with dyspepsia can be classified into symptom groupings that may represent different pathophysiological entities; however, it remains to be shown that distinct symptom subgroups exist. To estimate the prevalence of dyspepsia (defined as upper abdominal pain) and dyspepsia subgroups, an age- and sex-stratified random sample of Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents, aged 30-64 years, were mailed a valid self-report questionnaire; 82% responded (n = 835). Subgroups were as follows: those with symptoms suggestive of peptic ulceration (ulcerlike dyspepsia), those with gastric stasis (dysmotilitylike dyspepsia), those with gastroesophageal reflux (refluxlike dyspepsia), and the remainder (unspecified dyspepsia). Ulcerlike dyspepsia was the commonest subgroup (prevalence, 16.0/100; 95% confidence interval, 13.4-18.5), but 43% of subjects with dyspepsia could be classified into more than one subgroup. Nearly one third of dyspeptics also had irritable bowel symptoms, but these were not confined to any particular dyspepsia subgroup. Although dyspepsia is very common in the community and the majority have ulcerlike symptoms, there is such overlap among the dyspepsia subgroups that a classification based on symptoms alone in uninvestigated patients may not be useful. (Gastroenterology 1992 Apr;102(4 Pt 1):1259-68)

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous work suggested that a breath test using 13C accurately measures gastric emptying of solids. Thus, breath test half emptying time (t1/2) minus 66 minutes was claimed to estimate accurately t1/2 by scintigraphy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of this breath test in healthy subjects. METHODS: Fifteen volunteers (8 men and 7 women; mean age, 41 +/- 13 years) underwent simultaneous scintigraphy and [13C]octanoic acid breath test. Scans and breath samples were obtained every 15 minutes for 4 and 6 hours, respectively. The breath test was repeated three times within a 3-week period. RESULTS: Parameters from scintigraphy and breath test were not correlated significantly. Differences of lag phase and t1/2 between the two tests were highly variable (range for t1/2, -33.1 to 169.6; mean, 48.0 minutes). Increasing breath test "duration" (samples over 4, 5, or 6 hours) yielded decreasing estimates of the lag phase and t1/2. Although widely different values were observed in some subjects, repeated breath tests showed a high degree of reproducibility within individuals (mean coefficient of variation, 12%). CONCLUSIONS: [13C]Octanoic acid breath test for gastric emptying of solids requires further validation before it can substitute for scintigraphy as a diagnostic test, but it seems useful for intraindividual comparisons. (Gastroenterology 1997 Apr;112(4):1155-62)