Search

Increased esophageal sensitivity and impaired mucosal integrity have both been described in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, but the relationship between hypersensitivity and mucosal integrity is unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate acid sensitivity in patients with erosive and nonerosive reflux disease and control subjects to determine the relation with functional esophageal mucosal integrity changes as well as to investigate cellular mechanisms of impaired mucosal integrity in these patients. In this prospective experimental study, 12 patients with nonerosive reflux disease, 12 patients with esophagitis grade A or B, and 11 healthy control subjects underwent an acid perfusion test and upper endoscopy. Mucosal integrity was measured during endoscopy by electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy and biopsy specimens were analyzed in Ussing chambers for transepithelial electrical resistance, transepithelial permeability and gene expression of tight junction proteins and filaggrin. Patients with nonerosive reflux disease and esophagitis were more sensitive to acid perfusion compared with control subjects, having a shorter time to perception of heartburn and higher perceived intensity of heartburn. In reflux patients, enhanced acid sensitivity was associated with impairment of in vivo and vitro esophageal mucosal integrity. Mucosal integrity was significantly impaired in patients with esophagitis, displaying higher transepithelial permeability and lower extracellular impedance. Although no significant differences in the expression of tight junction proteins were found in biopsies among patient groups, mucosal integrity parameters in reflux patients correlated negatively with the expression of filaggrin. In conclusion, sensitivity to acid is enhanced in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, irrespective of the presence of erosions, and is associated with impaired esophageal mucosal integrity. Mucosal integrity of the esophagus is associated with the expression of filaggrin.

Acid reflux episodes that extend to the proximal esophagus are more likely to be perceived. This suggests that the proximal esophagus is more sensitive to acid than the distal esophagus, which could be caused by impaired mucosal integrity in the proximal esophagus. Our aim was to explore sensitivity to acid and mucosal integrity in different segments of the esophagus. We used a prospective observational study, including 12 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). After stopping acid secretion-inhibiting medication, two procedures were performed: an acid perfusion test and an upper endoscopy with electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy and esophageal biopsies. Proximal and distal sensitivity to acid and tissue impedance were measured in vivo, and mucosal permeability and epithelial intercellular spaces at different esophageal levels were measured in vitro. Mean lag time to heartburn perception was much shorter after proximal acid perfusion (0.8 min) than after distal acid perfusion (3.9 min) ( P = 0.02). Median in vivo tissue impedance was significantly lower in the distal esophagus (4,563 Ω·m) compared with the proximal esophagus (8,170 Ω·m) ( P = 0.002). Transepithelial permeability, as measured by the median fluorescein flux was significantly higher in the distal (2,051 nmol·cm−2·h−1) than in the proximal segment (368 nmol·cm−2·h−1) ( P = 0.033). Intercellular space ratio and maximum heartburn intensity were not significantly different between the proximal and distal esophagus. In GERD patients off acid secretion-inhibiting medication, acid exposure in the proximal segment of the esophagus provokes symptoms earlier than acid exposure in the distal esophagus, whereas mucosal integrity is impaired more in the distal esophagus. These findings indicate that the enhanced sensitivity to proximal reflux episodes is not explained by increased mucosal permeability.

Background The Chicago Classification (CC) facilitates interpretation of high-resolution manometry (HRM) recordings. Application of this adult based algorithm to the pediatric population is unknown. We therefore assessed intra and interrater reliability of software-based CC diagnosis in a pediatric cohort. Methods Thirty pediatric solid state HRM recordings (13M; mean age 12.1 ± 5.1 years) assessing 10 liquid swallows per patient were analyzed twice by 11 raters (six experts, five non-experts). Software-placed anatomical landmarks required manual adjustment or removal. Integrated relaxation pressure (IRP4s), distal contractile integral (DCI), contractile front velocity (CFV), distal latency (DL) and break size (BS), and an overall CC diagnosis were software-generated. In addition, raters provided their subjective CC diagnosis. Reliability was calculated with Cohen's and Fleiss’ kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Key Results Intra- and interrater reliability of software-generated CC diagnosis after manual adjustment of landmarks was substantial (mean κ = 0.69 and 0.77 respectively) and moderate-substantial for subjective CC diagnosis (mean κ = 0.70 and 0.58 respectively). Reliability of both software-generated and subjective diagnosis of normal motility was high (κ = 0.81 and κ = 0.79). Intra- and interrater reliability were excellent for IRP4s, DCI, and BS. Experts had higher interrater reliability than non-experts for DL (ICC = 0.65 vs ICC = 0.36 respectively) and the software-generated diagnosis diffuse esophageal spasm (DES, κ = 0.64 vs κ = 0.30). Among experts, the reliability for the subjective diagnosis of achalasia and esophageal gastric junction outflow obstruction was moderate-substantial (κ = 0.45–0.82). Conclusions & Inferences Inter- and intrarater reliability of software-based CC diagnosis of pediatric HRM recordings was high overall. However, experience was a factor influencing the diagnosis of some motility disorders, particularly DES and achalasia.

Water-perfused high-resolution manometry (HRM) catheters with 36 unidirectional pressure channels have recently been developed, but normal values are not yet available. Furthermore, the technique has not been validated and compared with solid-state HRM. We therefore aimed to develop normal values for water-perfused HRM and to assess the level of agreement between water-perfused HRM and solid-state HRM. We included 50 healthy volunteers (mean age 35 yr, range 21–64 yr; 15 women, 35 men). Water-perfused HRM and solid-state HRM were performed in a randomized order. Normal values were calculated as 5th and 95th percentile ranges, and agreement between the two systems was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistics. The 5th–95th percentile range was 3.0–6.6 cm/s for contractile front velocity (CFV), 141.6–3,674 mmHg·s·cm for distal contractile integral (DCI), 6.2–8.7 s for distal contraction latency (DL), and 1.0–18.8 mmHg for integrated relaxation pressure (IRP 4s). Mean (SD) and ICC for water-perfused HRM and solid-state HRM were 4.4 (1.1) vs. 3.9 (0.9) cm/s, ICC: 0.49 for CFV; 1,189 (1,023) vs. 1,092 (1,019) mmHg·s·cm, ICC: 0.90 for DCI; 7.4 (0.8) vs. 6.9 (0.9) s, ICC: 0.50 for DL; and 8.1 (4.8) vs. 7.9 (5.1), ICC: 0.39 for IRP 4s. The normal values for this water-perfused HRM system are only slightly different from previously published values with solid-state HRM, and moderate to good agreement was observed between the two systems, with only small differences in outcome measures.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with functional esophageal disorders present with symptoms of chest pain, heartburn, dysphagia, or globus in the absence of any structural abnormality. Visceral hypersensitivity is a feature of these functional disorders, and might be modulated by antidepressant therapy. We evaluated evidence for the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for symptoms associated with esophageal visceral hypersensitivity in patients with functional esophageal disorders or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Comprehensive Trial Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (through February 2014). We analyzed relevant randomized, placebo-controlled trials reporting the effect of antidepressant therapy on experimentally induced esophageal sensation or intensity, or frequency of heartburn, chest pain, dysphagia, or globus. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 378 articles; 15 described randomized controlled trials that were eligible for inclusion. In addition, 1 conference abstract and 2 case reports were included, providing the best available evidence on specific symptoms. Esophageal pain thresholds increased by 7% to 37% after antidepressant therapy. Antidepressant therapy reduced functional chest pain over a range from 18% to 67% and reduced heartburn in patients with GERD over a range of 23% to 61%. One study included patients with globus and none of the studies included patients with functional heartburn or functional dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review, antidepressants modulate esophageal sensation and reduce functional chest pain. There is limited evidence that antidepressants benefit a subgroup of patients with GERD. More controlled trials are needed to investigate the effects of antidepressants on functional esophageal disorders.

Background & Aims Histologic analysis is used to distinguish patients with proton pump inhibitor–responsive eosinophilia (PPI-REE) from those with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). It is not clear whether these entities have different etiologies. Exposure to acid reflux can impair the integrity of the esophageal mucosal. We proposed that patients with EoE and PPI-REE might have reflux-induced esophageal mucosal damage that promotes transepithelial flux of allergens. We therefore assessed the integrity of the esophageal mucosal in these patients at baseline and after PPI. Methods We performed a prospective study of 16 patients with suspected EoE and 11 controls. Patients had dysphagia, endoscopic signs of EoE, and esophageal eosinophilia (>15 eosinophils/high-power field [eos/hpf]). All subjects underwent endoscopy at baseline; endoscopy was performed again on patients after 8 weeks of treatment with high-dose esomeprazole. After PPI treatment, patients were diagnosed with EoE (>10 eos/hpf; n = 8) or PPI-REE (≤10 eos/hpf; n = 8). We evaluated the structure (intercellular spaces) and function (electrical tissue impedance, transepithelial electrical resistance, transepithelial molecule flux) of the esophageal mucosal barrier. Results Compared with controls, electrical tissue impedance and transepithelial electrical resistance were reduced in patients with EoE ( P P P = .01 and P = .06, respectively), enabling transepithelial small-molecule flux. PPI therapy partially restored these changes in integrity and inflammation in patients with PPI-REE, but not in those with EoE. Conclusions The integrity of the esophageal mucosa is impaired in patients with EoE and PPI-REE, allowing transepithelial transport of small molecules. PPI therapy partially restores mucosal integrity in patients with PPI-REE, but not in those with EoE. Acid reflux might contribute to transepithelial allergen flux in patients with PPI-REE. Trialregister.nl number: NTR3480.

Introduction: According to the Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, distal esophageal spasm (DES) is defined as a normal mean integral relaxation pressure (IRP) in combination with premature esophageal contractions (distal latency (DL) 9.0 cm/s) but with a normal DL. In the Chicago classification this poorly characterized abnormality is labelled "rapid contractions with normal latency" (RCNL). Aim: To investigate the differences between patients with DES and patients with RCNL. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics and high-resolution manometric recordings of patients with a normal IRP and simultaneous esophageal contractions with and without a short DL. The results of the barium esophagogram were also taken into account (absence or presence of tertiary contractions). Results: Since February 2012, 19 patients were identified. Of these, 8 fulfilled the Chicago criteria for DES (DES), including a short DL. The remaining 11 patients showed simultaneous contractions in the distal esophagus but with DL >4.5 s (RCNL). DES patients were younger than RCNL patients (59 ± 4 versus 72 ± 3 years, P

Introduction: Gastroesophageal reflux and allergies are both thought to play a role in the pathophysiology of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). It has been suggested that acid-induced esophageal mucosal damage promotes transepithelial allergen flux. Anecdotal evidence suggests that patients with typical signs and symptoms of EoE benefit from acid-suppressive therapy. The aim of our study was to evaluate esophageal mucosal integrity in patients with significant esophageal eosinophilia (SEE) and to study the effects of acid-suppressive therapy with PPI on symptoms, endoscopic signs, mucosal integrity, dilation of epithelial intercellular spaces (DIS), and peak eosinophilia and mastocytosis. Methods: We included 11 untreated adults with SEE (.15 eosinophils/hpf) and predominant symptoms of dysphagia and/or food impaction and typical endoscopic signs of EoE, and 11 controls. All study subjects underwent endoscopy at baseline; in SEE patients endoscopy was repeated after 8 weeks of esomeprazole 40 mg BID. Esophageal mucosal integrity was measured in vivo during endoscopy with a through-the-scope electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy probe (ETIS) at 5 cm proximal of the LES. At the same location, we obtained 2 biopsies for electron microscopic analysis of DIS and 4 biopsies for mucosal integrity experiments in Ussing chambers. In the Ussing chambers, we measured transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) and transmucosal flux of fluorescently-labelled molecules sized 0.3 and 40 kDa (size of food allergens) during 1 hour. In SEE patients, we additionally scored symptoms and endoscopic signs of EoE. Furthermore, eosinophilia and mastocytosis were scored in biopsies taken at the proximal, midand distal esophagus of SEE patients at each endoscopy. Results: Both structural (DIS) and in vivo and in vitro functional measurements (ETIS, TER, and molecule flux) of mucosal integrity showed significant impairment in SEE patients compared to HC (table 1). After acid-suppressive therapy, mucosal integrity was significantly improved in patients with SEE, but still did not reach the levels seen in controls. Esophageal peak eosinophilia andmastocytosis as well as dysphagia and endoscopic signs of EoE also decreased after acid-suppressive therapy. Conclusion: Patients with SEE have an impaired esophageal mucosal integrity, which is partially restored after acid-suppressive therapy. The observed reduction of transmucosal flux of molecules with a similar size as food allergens after acidsuppressive therapy supports the hypothesis that acid-induced mucosal damage facilitates transepithelial food allergen flux, which results in esophageal eosinophilia. Study parameters in HC and SEE patients