Esophageal histology does not provide additional useful information over clinical assessment in identifying reflux patients presenting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Optimal management of severe symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disorder, and empirical proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is often the first step of management; however, up to 40% of patients remain symptomatic despite PPI treatment. Refractory reflux refers to continued symptoms despite an adequate trial of PPI, and management remains challenging. The differential diagnosis is important; other oesophageal (e.g. eosinophilic oesophagitis) and gastroduodenal disorders (e.g. functional dyspepsia) should be ruled out, as this changes management. A combination of clinical assessment, endoscopic evaluation and in selected cases oesophageal function testing can help characterize patients with refractory reflux symptoms into oesophageal phenotypes so appropriate therapy can be more optimally targeted. Medical options then may include adding a H2 receptor antagonist, alginates, baclofen or antidepressant therapy, and there is emerging evidence for bile acid sequestrants and diaphragmatic breathing. The demonstration of a temporal association of symptoms with reflux events on pH-impedance testing (reflux hypersensitivity) serves to focus the management on modulating oesophageal perception and reducing the reflux burden, or identifies those with no obvious pathophysiologic abnormalities (functional heartburn). Anti-reflux surgery based on randomized controlled trial evidence has a role in reflux hypersensitivity or continued pathological acid reflux despite PPI in carefully considered, fully worked up cases that have failed medical therapy; approximately two of three cases will respond but there is a small risk of complications. In patients with persistent volume reflux despite medical therapy, given the lack of alternatives, anti-reflux surgery is a consideration. Promising newer approaches include endoscopic techniques. This review aims to summarize current diagnostic approaches and critically evaluates the evidence for the efficacy of available treatments.

The indications for biopsy in routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

This review describes the indications and contraindications for endoscopic biopsy, in routine practice, of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract. We accept that this review provides grounds for controversy, as our stance in certain situations is counter to some national guidelines. Nevertheless, we provide evidence to support our viewpoints, especially on efficiency and economic grounds. We describe the particular controversies concerning the biopsy assessment of Barrett's oesophagus, chronic gastritis and the duodenum in the investigation of coeliac disease. We accept that there are indications for more extensive upper GI biopsy protocols in children than in adults; the latter constitute our main focus in this article. We would encourage detailed discussion between pathologists and their endoscopy colleagues about the indications, or lack of them, for routine upper GI endoscopic biopsy, as studies have shown that adherence to agreed guidelines has resulted in a very considerable diminution in the biopsy workload without compromising patient management. Furthermore, where biopsy is indicated, we emphasise the importance of accompanying clinical information provided to the pathologist, in particular regarding biopsy site(s), and regular feedback to endoscopists to improve and maintain the quality of such information. Finally, local dialogue is also advised, when necessary, to indicate to endoscopists the need to appropriately segregate biopsies into separate, individually labelled specimens, to maximise the information that can be derived by pathological evaluation and thereby improve the quality of the final pathology report.

Detection of minimal mucosal esophageal lesions in non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease using optical enhancement plus optical magnification

Background and study aims  The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of endoscopy using optical enhancement (OE system) with optical magnification to predict reflux in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients. Patients and methods  A prospective, non-randomized, single-blind study was performed from September 2015 to January 2016. Participants suffered from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and were assigned to the NERD group or the non-reflux disease control group based on endoscopic findings and a 24-hour pH-impedance-monitoring test. Endoscopy using the OE system with optical magnification was performed in all patients to detect minimal mucosal esophageal lesions (MMEL), specifically abnormalities in the numbers, dilation, and tortuosity of intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCLs). Biopsies were obtained from each esophageal segment, and diagnoses from images were compared to diagnoses of reflux and inflammation using 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring and histology, respectively. Results  Fifty-seven patients were included (36 in the NERD group, 21 in the control group). IPCLs were observed in 94.4 % of cases in the NERD group and 38 % of cases in the control group ( P  < 0.05). There were significant differences in IPCL abnormalities between groups that were associated with histologically identified inflammation. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 94.4 %, 61.9 %, 80.9 %, 86.6 %, and 82.4 %, respectively. The 24-hour pH-impedance-monitoring test was used as the gold standard. The Kappa interobserver and intraobserver values were 0.85 and 0.90, respectively. Conclusion  The OE system with optical magnification can detect MMEL and predict NERD with high sensitivity, accuracy, and interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Presence of IPCLs highly correlates with histologically identified inflammation.

The added value of magnifying endoscopy in diagnosing patients with certain gastroesophageal reflux disease

PURPOSE

In most cases gastroesophageal reflux disease proceeds without macroscopic erosions in the esophagus. We aimed to clarify if abnormalities detectable in magnifying endoscopy may offer additional diagnostic criteria for gastroesophageal reflux disease and to what histopathologic structures do they correspond.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Esophageal mucosa above and below Z-line was evaluated under x115 magnification in 67 gastroesophageal reflux disease patients (11 with erosive reflux disease, 28 with Barrett's esophagus, 28 with nonerosive reflux disease) and in 12 patients without gastroesophageal reflux disease (negative control group). Features characteristic of gastroesophageal reflux disease were specified by comparing erosive reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus patients with negative control group. Afterwards the presence of identified features were evaluated in nonerosive reflux disease group. Interobserver agreement in the recognition of the proposed criteria was rated. Biopsies collected from the mucosa above Z-line were evaluated histologically after hematoxylin and eosin staining.

RESULTS

Endoscopic lesions characteristic of gastroesophageal reflux disease were: microerosions, abnormal intrapapillary capillary loops, obscured palisade vessels, white points, big triangular indentations of Z-line and villous mucosa below Z-line. The presence of two or more of the above features indicated gastroesophageal reflux disease with 97% sensitivity and 75% specificity. Substantial interobserver agreement was achieved in evaluation of obscured palisade vessels, abnormal intrapapillary capillary loops and white points. Endoscopic lesions were correlated to histology. Lesions identified with magnifying endoscopy were helpful in discerning between negative control group and nonerosive reflux disease patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnifying endoscopy reveals abnormalities that can be used as additional endoscopic diagnostic criteria of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Diagnostic work-up of GERD

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is frequently diagnosed by symptoms and good response to acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors. Further work up is required when the diagnosis of GERD is uncertain, for alarm symptoms, PPI-refractoriness, and often for extraesophageal presentations. Useful tools include endoscopy for mucosal assessment and reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH) to quantify reflux burden. Objective documentation of pathological reflux is mandatory prior to anti-reflux surgery. In some patients, symptoms that can be attributed to GERD may have other causes; in these patients, testing that excludes GERD helps direct the diagnostic and treatment efforts to other causes.

Current trends in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a review

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic disorder of the upper gastrointestinal tract with global distribution. The incidence is on the increase in different parts of the world. In the last 30 to 40 years, research findings have given rise to a more robust understanding of its pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management. The current definition of GERD (The Montreal definition, 2006) is not only symptom-based and patient-driven, but also encompasses esophageal and extraesophageal manifestations of the disease. The implication is that the disease can be confidently diagnosed based on symptoms alone. Nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) remains the predominant form of GERD. Current thinking is that NERD and erosive reflux disease (ERD) are distinct phenotypes of GERD rather than the old concept which regarded them as components of a disease spectrum. Non erosive reflux disease is a very heterogeneous group with significant overlap with other functional gastrointestinal disorders. There is no gold standard for the diagnosis of GERD. Esophageal pH monitoring and intraluminal impedance monitoring have thrown some light on the heterogeneity of NERD. A substantial proportion of GERD patients continue to have symptoms despite optimal PPI therapy, and this has necessitated research into the development of new drugs. Several safety concerns have been raised about chronic use of proton pump inhibitors but these are yet to be substantiated in controlled studies. The debate about efficacy of long-term medical treatment compared to surgery continues, however, recent data indicate that modern surgical techniques and long-term PPI therapy have comparable efficacy. These and other issues are subjects of further research.

Atypical symptoms in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background/Aims

Atypical symptoms are common in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and erosive reflux disease (ERD) exhibit different clinical characteristics and responses to acid suppression treatment. We aimed to compare atypical characteristics in patients with NERD and ERD. We also investigated the presence of histological esophagitis in patients with NERD and ERD.

Methods

Eligible patients completed a questionnaire regarding reflux symptoms and concomitant atypical symptoms. Endoscopic biopsies with histological examination were performed.

Results

Of the 210 patients with GERD, 90 patients with ERD and 120 patients with NERD were studied. ERD patients were characterized by higher prevalence of hiatal hernia (P = 0.001) and smoking (P = 0.047). The prevalence of GERD was greater in the age group between 41 and 60 years regardless of endoscopic finding. There was no difference in the prevalence of atypical symptoms or histological esophagitis between NERD and ERD. In all subjects, heartburn was associated with dysphagia (r = 0.16, P = 0.01), dyspepsia (r = 0.22, P = 0.008) and hiccup (r = 0.19, P = 0.003), whereas acid regurgitation was associated with dyspepsia (r = 0.21, P = 0.014), belching (r = 0.15, P = 0.018) and hiccup (r = 0.19, P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Atypical symptoms did not correlate with the presence of histological esophagitis. Atypical symptoms were equally prevalent in patients with NERD and ERD. The existence of atypical symptoms appears to be associated with the presence of typical reflux symptoms irrespective of endoscopic and histological reflux esophagitis.

A new method in the diagnosis of reflux esophagitis: confocal laser endomicroscopy

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of GERD is made by using a combination of clinical symptoms, pH study, endoscopy, and histology. Histologic changes include basal cell hyperplasia and papillary elongation. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) enables surface and subsurface imaging of living cells in vivo at ×1000 magnification and up to 250 μm below the tissue surface. In the esophagus, the distance between the surface to papillary (S-P) tip can be measured by using CLE.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the S-P distance in the esophagus in patients with reflux esophagitis and controls by using CLE and comparing with histologic measurements.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit of a tertiary-care children's hospital.

PATIENTS

This study involved 7 patients (5 female) with a median age of 7.6 years (range 1.8-15.5 years) and median weight of 23 kg (range 13.2-71 kg) and 16 controls with a median age of 12.0 years (range 2.2-15.3 years) and median weight of 38.2 kg (range 10.7-83 kg).

INTERVENTION

S-P distance was measured both by CLE and histology and was corrected for height for both patients and controls and the results compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

To determine if there were significant differences in the S-P distance in patients with esophagitis and controls.

RESULTS

The median confocal and histologic measurements for S-P distance, corrected for patient height, were 0.19 μm/cm (range 0.10-0.49 μm/cm) and 0.58 μm/cm (range 0.29-0.76 μm/cm) and for controls were 0.44 μm/cm (range 0.20-0.93 μm/cm) and 1.07 μm/cm (range 0.76-0.1.57 μm/cm), respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Small numbers involved in the study, reliance on only papillary elongation in arriving at a diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Measurement of the S-P distance by CLE will enable real-time diagnosis of GERD-related esophagitis during ongoing endoscopy.

Distinct proteomic profiles characterise non-erosive from erosive reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Erosive reflux disease (ERD) and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) are often regarded as part of the spectrum of the same disease.

AIM

To elucidate molecular features that characterise NERD and ERD at the protein level.

METHODS

A total of 56 consecutive subjects were enrolled: 10 healthy subjects, 24 with NERD and 22 with ERD. Eight specimens were taken from macroscopically normal mucosa at 5 cm of gastro-oesophageal junction. Four were processed for the proteins extraction and four for evaluation using haematoxylin-eosin and immunohistochemistry. We used shotgun proteomics to identify tentative disease molecular features for ERD or NERD. Candidate distinctive proteins were verified using immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Shotgun proteomics analysis revealed 33 differentially expressed proteins in NERD vs. ERD samples, involved in cellular proliferation, keratinisation, stress responses and sugar metabolism. Based on a gene ontology meta-analysis, seven of them were further analysed using Western blotting (WB) and four also using immunohistochemistry. We identified novel candidate disease molecular features for GERD and few distinctive proteins to discriminate NERD and ERD. In particular, Transitional Endoplasmic Reticulum ATPase (TER ATPase), GAPDH, Alpha 1 Acid Glycoprotein 1, Annexin A1, Calmodulin and 14-3-3 proteins were confirmed at WB analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-erosive reflux disease and ERD are distinct disease entities at the protein level. This study proposes an array of candidate biomarkers possibly useful to discriminate between NERD and ERD.

The Los Angeles and Savary-Miller systems for grading esophagitis: utilization and correlation with histology

The aim of the study is to determine the proportion of patients who have esophageal biopsy specimens taken for an endoscopic diagnosis of reflux esophagitis in which an endoscopic grade of esophagitis (Los Angeles [LA] or Savary-Miller [SM]) is communicated to the pathologist, and to evaluate the correlation between those endoscopic grades and histopathologic findings. We searched the database of Caris Diagnostics (a large, gastrointestinal pathology practice that receives specimens from community-based endoscopy centers), and extracted data from all patients who had an endoscopy with esophageal biopsies submitted in a 12-month period. There were esophageal biopsy specimens from 49,480 patients obtained during 58,986 endoscopies. The LA grade was provided in 5513 cases (27.9% of 19,778 with endoscopic esophagitis); the SM grade was stated in only 2416 cases (12.2%). A histopathologic diagnosis of erosive or ulcerative esophagitis was made significantly less often in LA grade A patients (3.2%) than in those with LA grades C (20.0%) and D (23.3%); erosive or ulcerative esophagitis was found in only 1.4% of patients with SM grade I and in 35.5% of cases with grade IV. Endoscopists who biopsy the esophagus of patients with reflux esophagitis usually do not communicate the grade of esophagitis to the pathologist. Although both the LA and SM grading systems are based on the presence of esophageal mucosal breaks (erosions or ulcers), in practice such breaks are documented in only a minority of esophageal biopsy specimens taken from patients with reflux esophagitis of any grade.

Potential role of the cannabinoid receptor CB in the pathogenesis of erosive and non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Cannabinoid (CB) receptors have been located in brain areas involved in the triggering of TLESRs as well as in the nodose ganglion from which vagal afferents emanate. The distribution of CB(1) receptors has been investigated in the human gastrointestinal mucosa, as expression of inflammatory process.

AIM

To evaluate the CB(1) expression in oesophageal mucosa.

METHODS

A total of 87 consecutive subjects were enrolled: 10 controls, 39 NERD and 38 erosive oesophagitis. Eight specimens were taken from macroscopically normal mucosa. Five were processed by haematoxylin-eosin, MIB1/CB(1) evaluation and three for the RNA and proteins extraction.

RESULTS

The mean MIB1-LI value was 31% and 22% in NERD and ERD patients, respectively, compared to 68% in the healthy subjects. Mean CB(1)mRNA/GUSB mRNA value of the controls was 0.66, while in GERD patients, it was 0.28. In NERD and ERD, the mean values of CB(1)/GUSB were 0.38 and 0.17, respectively, with highly significant differences between the NERD vs. ERD groups. Semi-quantitative analysis of CB(1) expression, performed with WB, shows in NERD patients a higher CB(1) receptor expression than ERD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

With this study, we showed for the first time the presence of CB(1) receptors in the human oesophageal epithelium.

Do eosinophil numbers differentiate eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease?

CONTEXT

Although the healthy esophageal mucosa contains no eosinophils, eosinophilic infiltration is observed in 2 major clinicopathologic settings: gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EE). The prevalence of EE is increasing in many countries, and this increase seems only partly to be due to a better awareness of the pathology, following the relatively recent description of EE. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and EE represent 2 entities that do not respond to the same treatment modalities and, thus, need to be distinguished. However, diagnostic criteria of EE have been defined arbitrarily, and the more recent articles tend to prove that the overlap with GERD is probably greater than initially believed, leading the authors to advise strict exclusion of GERD before considering the diagnosis of EE.

OBJECTIVES

To provide pathologists with the currently proposed histologic criteria of GERD and EE, to stress the need to combine these criteria with clinical data and endoscopic findings, and to outline the remaining controversies.

DATA SOURCES

This review is based on selected articles identified by a PubMed (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) search of the literature in English for GERD and EE, a recent review by the American Gastroenterological Association (Bethesda), the Proceedings of the First International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Research Symposium, and the authors' experience.

CONCLUSION

Proper identification of the etiology of eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus allows accurate medical or surgical treatment and follow-up. Eosinophilic esophagitis and GERD diagnoses require integration of the histologic findings with the clinical and endoscopic data.

Microscopic esophagitis in gastro-esophageal reflux disease: individual lesions, biopsy sampling, and clinical correlations

Patients with non-erosive reflux disease may show microscopic damage. This study is aimed to describe distribution, sensitivity, and specificity of histological lesions (i.e., basal cell hyperplasia-BH, papillae elongation-PE, dilatation of intercellular spaces-DIS, intraepithelial eosinophils-IE, neutrophils, and erosions) and sampling criteria. Four groups were identified on the basis of symptoms, endoscopy, and pH monitoring: (1) erosive esophagitis (n = 48), (2) non-erosive esophagitis with abnormal pH (n = 59), (3) non-erosive esophagitis with normal pH (n = 12), and (4) controls (n = 20). Biopsies were taken at the Z-line and 2 and 4 cm above it. BH, PE, DIS, IE, neutrophils, and erosions were assessed. A global severity score was calculated on the basis of the above parameters and allowed the distinction of patients from controls with 80% sensitivity and 85% specificity. Lesions were more severe at Z-line than proximally and more expressed in erosive than in non-erosive disease, although more than 70% of latter patients still showed histological damage. Esophageal biopsy seems very attractive in non-erosive disease where it may contribute to diagnosis and play a role in the comparative evaluation of different therapies.

Diagnostic options for patients with refractory GERD

Patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are those who have persistent symptoms while being treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). One third of GERD patients requiring a daily PPI are estimated to eventually experience treatment failure. These patients are usually referred for further investigation to confirm the presence of GERD or to identify other entities as the cause of symptoms. Tools that can be used in this diagnostic process include upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with analysis of esophageal biopsies, esophageal pH monitoring, impedance-pH monitoring, and esophageal bilirubin monitoring. The conventional diagnostic approach includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and ambulatory pH monitoring while receiving PPI therapy. New diagnostic techniques that may be useful with refractory GERD include impedance-pH monitoring, which is very sensitive in detecting persistent weakly acidic reflux, and bilirubin monitoring, which detects increased esophageal exposure to bile. Gastric pH monitoring should be reserved for patients in whom PPI resistance is suspected.

Contribution of histology to the diagnosis of reflux disease

Histology in reflux disease is still regarded as having low sensitivity and specificity. During the last three decades several histological parameters have been developed, including thickness of basal cell layer, length of epithelial papillae, intraepithelial inflammatory cells and dilation of intercellular spaces. Unfortunately classification of these parameters was often not related to the clinical symptoms of the reflux affected individuals, proper control subjects were often missing and often no interobserver variation was given. Another reason for the proposed low value of biopsies is the fact that biopsies were often taken in a non-standardised way. Recent studies point towards an area of predominantly epithelial damage close to the lesser curvature or around the right oesophageal wall. In parallel, some large, careful studies carried out recently showed a good correlation with the clinical picture of reflux disease due to a standardised biopsy protocol and proper controls. But biopsies are not recommended in all routine classical cases of reflux disease since it is believed that little further information in addition to endoscopy can be obtained. However, histology can deliver much more information than the diagnosis of reflux induced lesions (e.g. the exclusion of malignancy or other oesophageal diseases).

Endoscopic appearance of GERD: putative role of cell proliferation

BACKGROUND

Erosive esophagitis is a frequent endoscopic feature in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. However, most of patients with heartburn/regurgitation have a non-erosive reflux disease. The reason for this heterogeneous impact of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on oesophageal mucosa is unknown to date.

AIM

To evaluate the cell proliferation status of oesophageal epithelium in both healthy normal subjects and patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with or without erosions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the subjects underwent endoscopy and biopsies were taken at 5 cm from the squamo-columnar junction. Specimens were analysed both at histology and at transmission electron microscopy. Cell proliferation was evaluated by MIB1 immunostaining. Of the 85 subjects were studied, 10 were healthy controls with normal pH-testing and macroscopical, histological and ultrastructural patterns; 37 were patients with erosive esophagitis, and 38 patients with non-erosive reflux disease.

RESULTS

At histology, of the 37 patients affected by erosive esophagitis, 30 had normal mucosa and 7 showed mild oesophagitis. One patient with non-erosive reflux disease showed signs of oesophagitis at histology. At TEM, all patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease had ultrastructural patterns of damage i.e. dilations of intercellular spaces (DIS), and all controls had a normal ultrastructural pattern. The mean (+/-SD) MIB1-LI values of normal subjects and non-erosive reflux disease and erosive oesophagitis patients were 62.2% (+/-9.1), 29.7% (+/-7.2) and 16.2% (+/-5.2), respectively; there were significant differences among the three groups (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oesophageal mucosa of patients with reflux symptoms presents a decrease in MIB1 immunostaining of 50% and 25% in non-erosive reflux disease and erosive esophagitis patients with respect to normal subjects.

Thoughts on the complex relationship between gastroesophageal reflux disease and eosinophilic esophagitis

Recent data suggest that the interaction between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis can be complex, and that the notion of establishing a clear distinction between the two disorders may be too simplistic. There are at least four situations in which GERD might be associated with esophageal eosinophils: (a) GERD causes esophageal injury that results in a mild eosinophilic infiltration, (b) GERD and eosinophilic esophagitis coexist but are unrelated, (c) eosinophilic esophagitis contributes to or causes GERD, or (d) GERD contributes to or causes eosinophilic esophagitis. The high frequency of GERD described in adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis suggests that there may be more than a chance association between the two disorders. This report discusses potential mechanisms for the complex interaction between GERD and eosinophilic esophagitis. We hope that this information will serve as a conceptual basis for future studies on the relationship between the two disorders. Whereas there are a number of plausible mechanisms whereby GERD might contribute to the accumulation of eosinophils in the esophageal epithelium, it seems prudent to recommend a clinical trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy even when the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis seems clear-cut. Furthermore, we suggest that a favorable response to PPI therapy does not preclude a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Morphometric histology for infant gastroesophageal reflux disease: evaluation of reliability in 497 esophageal biopsies

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the reliability of morphometric measurements on infant esophageal biopsies using a light microscope with eyepiece micrometer.

METHODS

We measured epithelial thickness, basal layer thickness (B), papillary height (P) and epithelial lymphocyte and eosinophil numbers on approximately 500 existing esophageal suction biopsies from infants previously evaluated for reflux esophagitis. We tested these measurements for interobserver, test-retest and internal consistency reliability.

RESULTS

Infants ages 0.25 to 23.75 (median, 6.25) months provided 497 biopsies. Both investigators scoring the biopsies independently judged 93% of them scorable. Of the biopsies scored by both, the 2 readings were within 0.15 of each other for P in 97% and for B in 81%. In addition to these correlative measures of consistency, categoric measures demonstrated that 373 (89%) of the 420 scorable biopsies with visible papillae produced agreement as to P being abnormal (317, 85%) or normal (56, 15%). Similarly, 360 (78%) of the 463 scorable biopsies produced agreement as to B being abnormal (339, 94%) or normal (21, 6%). P values were 0.17 to 0.94 (median, 0.67), and B values were 0.13 to 0.91 (median, 0.34). Lymphocytes numbered 0 to 40 (median 5) per high-power field. Only 12% had any eosinophils; none of those with completely normal morphometrics had any eosinophils; and only 2% had >5 eosinophils per high-power field.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple quantitative esophageal histological morphometric parameters are reliably measurable on suction biopsies from infants using a light microscope fitted with an ocular micrometer, even by nonpathologists.

The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus

OBJECTIVES

A globally acceptable definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is desirable for research and clinical practice. The aim of this initiative was to develop a consensus definition and classification that would be useful for patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies.

METHODS

A modified Delphi process was employed to reach consensus using repeated iterative voting. A series of statements was developed by a working group of five experts after a systematic review of the literature in three databases (Embase, Cochrane trials register, Medline). Over a period of 2 yr, the statements were developed, modified, and approved through four rounds of voting. The voting group consisted of 44 experts from 18 countries. The final vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as agreement by two-thirds of the participants.

RESULTS

The level of agreement strengthened throughout the process with two-thirds of the participants agreeing with 86%, 88%, 94%, and 100% of statements at each vote, respectively. At the final vote, 94% of the final 51 statements were approved by 90% of the Consensus Group, and 90% of statements were accepted with strong agreement or minor reservation. GERD was defined as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications. The disease was subclassified into esophageal and extraesophageal syndromes. Novel aspects of the new definition include a patient-centered approach that is independent of endoscopic findings, subclassification of the disease into discrete syndromes, and the recognition of laryngitis, cough, asthma, and dental erosions as possible GERD syndromes. It also proposes a new definition for suspected and proven Barrett's esophagus.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based global consensus definitions are possible despite differences in terminology and language, prevalence, and manifestations of the disease in different countries. A global consensus definition for GERD may simplify disease management, allow collaborative research, and make studies more generalizable, assisting patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies.

Severity of basal cell hyperplasia differs in reflux versus eosinophilic esophagitis

OBJECTIVES

Basal cell hyperplasia of the esophageal epithelium is a frequent finding in children with histological evidence of esophagitis. The aim of this study was to compare the severity of basal cell hyperplasia in gastroesophageal reflux vs eosinophilic esophagitis.

METHODS

A cohort of pediatric patients who underwent same-day endoscopy with esophageal biopsy and 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring was divided into groups based on endoscopic and pH monitoring findings. Basal cell hyperplasia was defined as normal (< or = 25% of esophageal epithelial height), mild (26%-50%), moderate (51%-75%) or severe (> 75%). The severity of basal cell hyperplasia in patients with abnormal pH monitoring studies, both with and without endoscopic abnormalities of the esophagus, was compared with the severity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven children with abnormal pH monitoring were identified. Of these 27 children, 11 had endoscopic findings consistent with reflux esophagitis. Thirty patients with eosinophilic esophagitis were identified. Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis had significantly increased severity (P < 0.001) of basal cell hyperplasia (87% severe, 3% moderate, 3% mild, 7%, normal) than patients with abnormal esophageal pH monitoring alone (11% severe, 4% moderate, 15% mild, 70% normal) or in combination with endoscopic abnormalities (18% severe, 9% moderate, 18% mild, 55% normal).

CONCLUSIONS

Basal cell hyperplasia is more severe in children with eosinophilic esophagitis than in those with reflux esophagitis. The finding of basal cell hyperplasia is a powerful clue into the underlying etiology of pediatric esophagitis and, along with epithelial eosinophil count, can be used as information to guide therapy.

An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

In recognition of the high prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and its importance in Latin America, the InterAmerican Association of Gastroenterology and the InterAmerican Society of Digestive Endoscopy organized a Latin-American Consensus on GORD in Cancun, Mexico in September 2004. The main objectives of the consensus meeting were to provide evidence-based guidance with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of GORD, relevant to all countries in the region. The methodology, results and recommendations of the consensus are described in detail.

Minimal changes in reflux esophagitis: red ones and white ones

Minimal change esophagitis is commonly accepted as part of the spectrum of reflux esophagitis in Japan as well as in many reflux esophagitis classification systems. However, the Los Angeles system excludes minimal changes as a sign of reflux esophagitis because of low interobserver agreement. The high prevalence of minimal change esophagitis suggests that many endoscopists can recognize such findings in their patients' esophagi. However, we do not have a clear definition of minimal changes, which requires proven interobserver agreement, histological evidence, and response data to therapeutic intervention. Furthermore, erythematous changes (red ones) and acanthotic changes (white ones) are not distinguished in the definition of minimal change used in Japan. It is time to clarify such issues.

[Correct diagnosis for indication in gastroesophageal reflux disease]

For diagnosis and quantitation of gastroesophageal reflux disease, a number of different examinations are available. The simplest are the patient's history and complaints as well as the proton pump inhibitor test; both methods have a positive predictive value of 65% to 70%. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the gold standard for differentiation between erosive and nonerosive reflux disease. Biopsy does not enhance the significance of endoscopy except for proof of Barrett's epithelium or malignant degeneration. Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring has the highest sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Barium swallow provides only additional information concerning hiatal hernia or stenosis. Manometry can clarify lower esophageal sphincter insufficiency or motility disorders of the tubular esophagus. However, the available studies show that manometry has no influence on postoperative outcome after fundoplication. The indication for medical therapy can primarily be based only on the history and complaints of the patient. As surgical therapy affords a high degree of diagnostic accuracy, at least endoscopy and 24-h pH monitoring are necessary for indication.

Lugol chromoendoscopy as a diagnostic tool in so-called endoscopy-negative GERD

BACKGROUND

Esophageal mucosal breaks are found in less than half of patients with typical reflux symptom. Thus, endoscopy appears to be an insensitive test for GERD. Lugol chromoendoscopy has been used to detect early esophageal cancer, which is difficult to recognize by routine observation without dye staining. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of Lugol chromoendoscopy in the diagnosis of so-called endoscopy-negative GERD (ENRD).

METHODS

The study was conducted with 61 patients (21 women; mean age of 59.8 years) with reflux symptoms and 42 controls (15 women; mean age, 65.0 years). In the absence of any esophageal mucosal abnormalities at conventional endoscopy, Lugol's iodine solution was sprayed onto the esophageal surface, followed by evaluation of the staining pattern. When Lugol-unstained streaks were observed at chromoendoscopy, biopsy specimens were obtained from unstained streaks and from adjacent stained mucosa. Histologic evaluation included basal cell hyperplasia, papillary length, and cellular infiltration.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (36%) of 61 patients with reflux, and 4 (10%) of 42 controls had visible esophagitis by conventional endoscopy. Lugol chromoendoscopy was performed in the remaining 39 patients and 38 controls. The entire esophageal mucosa was uniformly stained dark brown in 20 patients with reflux and 37 controls. In the remaining 19 patients with reflux and in one control, several unstained streaks were observed in the distal esophagus (p < 0.0001). Histologically, Lugol-unstained mucosa showed a significantly thicker basal cell layer (30.9% +/- 7.6% vs. 12.3% +/- 4.5% of total epithelial thickness, mean +/- standard deviation [SD], p < 0.01) and longer papillae (57.9% +/- 12.6% vs. 38.1% +/- 12.6% of total epithelial thickness, mean [SD], p < 0.01) compared with stained mucosa. In addition, infiltration of lymphocytes in the epithelium was significantly increased in unstained mucosa than in stained mucosa (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Visible unstained streaks by Lugol chromoendoscopy seem to be indicative of mucosal injury, which was not detectable by conventional endoscopy. Lugol chromoendoscopy is simple and could be useful for the diagnosis of ENRD. This method could be appealing for the endoscopist as it is easy, safe, and can be performed at the same endoscopic session.

Reassessment of the diagnostic value of histology in patients with GERD, using multiple biopsy sites and an appropriate control group

BACKGROUND

Histology is generally considered as a tool of limited value in the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).

AIM

To reevaluate the diagnostic role of histological alterations in GERD, using multiple biopsy sites and an appropriate control group.

METHODS

We studied 135 patients with typical and atypical symptoms of GERD. They underwent upper GI endoscopy and Los Angeles classification was used for grading cases with mucosal breaks. Biopsies were taken at the Z-line, 2 and 4 cm above it. Microscopic esophagitis was identified by necrosis/erosion, neutrophil/eosinophil intraepithelial infiltration, basal cell hyperplasia, elongation of papillae, dilation of intercellular spaces and a score (range: 0-2) was given for each lesion. Twenty-four-hour esophageal pH monitoring was performed in each patient. Twenty subjects without reflux symptoms, and with normal endoscopy and pH testing were considered as controls.

RESULTS

Histological alterations were found in 100 of 119 GERD patients (84%) and in 3 of 20 controls (15%) with a significant difference (p < 0.00001). Histology was abnormal in 96% of patients with erosive esophagitis and in 76% of patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). The sum of scores of microscopic lesions found in all biopsy sites ranged from 0 to 22 and we identified a cut-off value (score 2) that distinguished efficiently controls from GERD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast with previous reports on the marginal role of histology in patients with GERD, our study shows that this technique can be a useful diagnostic tool, particularly in patients with NERD, when biopsies are taken at two sites including Z-line and 2 cm above it.

Review article: how valuable are proton-pump inhibitors in establishing a diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease?

Diagnostic studies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (endoscopy, pH testing) have significant limitations. A short trial of acid suppression with a proton-pump inhibitor is often used in clinical practice as a diagnostic test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. If there is a significant improvement in symptoms, the patient is considered to have gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Several studies have evaluated the administration of proton-pump inhibitors as a diagnostic test for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A recent meta-analysis found that response to a proton-pump inhibitor had limited value as a diagnostic test. Likelihood ratios for a positive test ranged from 0.45 to 1.86. The positive predictive value of the test ranged from 0.17 to 0.90 and the negative predictive value from 0.17 to 1, depending on the gold standard against which comparisons were made. These results may be explained by the inadequacy of the gold standard against which the proton-pump inhibitor test is compared or by the inability of acid suppression to differentiate between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease or dyspepsia. Although a trial of acid suppression may have pragmatic value in clinical practice, the proton-pump inhibitor test is not an accurate test for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Esophagitis and Barrett esophagus after correction of esophageal atresia

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux is a frequent problem after esophageal atresia (EA) repair. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of esophagitis and Barrett esophagus more than 10 years after repair of EA.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients treated between 1973 and 1985 were included in this prospective study. A questionnaire was completed by 86 patients; esophagogastroscopy was performed in 49 patients.

RESULTS

Only 36 patients had no complaints at all. Thirty-one patients complained of difficulties swallowing solid food; 23 complained of heartburn. Esophagogastroscopy revealed grade 3 esophagitis in 2 patients and a macroscopic image of Barrett esophagus in 2. Histology showed esophagitis in 30 patients, gastric metaplasia in 3, and no intestinal metaplasia (Barrett esophagus).

CONCLUSIONS

For epidemiologic reasons, that is, the short interval of follow-up (10 years) and the low compliance of the study group, larger numbers are needed to decide if routine long-term endoscopic screening after repair of EA is necessary. For now, it cannot yet be recommended. The prevalence of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease in this study group is higher than that in the general population, but we found no severe complications of gastroesophageal reflux in the pediatric age group.

Impact of 24-h esophageal pH monitoring on the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease: defining the gold standard

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The tests that are currently available for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) lack the desired diagnostic accuracy. To date, only pH monitoring has been shown to have a good sensitivity and specificity, but recent studies have failed to confirm this. Thus there is a need to find a test with acceptable sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing GERD. The present study aimed to find a single test or a combination of tests that could serve as a gold standard for the diagnosis of GERD and to identify an evidence-based diagnostic work-up for GERD in clinical and research settings.

METHODS

A prospectively conducted masked study was carried out in which 109 GERD patients were recruited on the basis of symptom score evaluation (heartburn and/or regurgitation). After informed consent was given, the patients underwent various tests, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy from the lower esophageal mucosa during the first visit, followed by omeprazole challenge test (OCT), radionuclide scintigraphy, barium swallow and finally 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. A positive concordance of three or more tests was taken as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The results of all six tests were available for 70 patients. As a single diagnostic test, pH testing had the best combination of sensitivity and specificity (Youden's J = 0.69). Even in cases of endoscopy-negative reflux disease, pH monitoring was the most sensitive and specific test (93.3% and 90.4%, respectively; J = 0.83). OCT, endoscopy and histopathology also had good sensitivity (84.4%, 64.4%, 82.2%, respectively). A combination of OCT, endoscopy and histopathology achieved a sensitivity of 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of OCT, endoscopy and histology will identify all cases of GERD. As these investigations are easily available, they should form the diagnostic work-up in clinical situations. 24-h esophageal pH testing, despite being the gold standard, has no utility in routine clinical settings and hence its availability should be limited to tertiary care settings.

Report of the Asia-Pacific consensus on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease

This report summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of a panel of gastroenterologists practising in the Asia-Pacific region. The group recognized that although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is less common and milder in endoscopic severity in Asia than in the West, there is nevertheless data to suggest an increasing frequency of the disease. During a 2-day workshop, the evidence for key issues in the diagnosis and clinical strategies for the management of the disease was evaluated, following which the recommendations were made and debated. The consensus report was presented at the Asia-Pacific Digestive Week 2003 in Singapore for ratification. Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of erosive GERD. There is no gold standard for the diagnosis of non-erosive GERD (NERD). Diagnosis therefore relies on symptoms, a positive 24-h pH study or a response to a course of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. The goals of treatment for GERD are to heal esophagitis, relieve symptoms, maintain the patient free of symptoms, improve quality of life and prevent complications. The PPI are the most effective medical treatment. Following initial treatment, on-demand therapy may be effective in some patients with NERD or mild (GI) erosive esophagitis. Anti-reflux surgery by a competent surgeon could achieve a similar outcome, although there is an operative mortality of 0.1-0.8%. The decision is dependent on the patient's preference and the availability of surgical expertise. Currently, endoscopic treatment should be performed only in the context of a clinical trial. Treatment of patients with typical GERD symptoms without alarm features in primary care could begin with PPI for 2 weeks followed by a further 4 weeks before going to on-demand therapy.

Oesophageal histology in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is of minor pre- and postoperative diagnostic value

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The clinical value of oesophageal histology in non-complicated gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is controversial. Our aim was to explore the role of histology in preoperative diagnosis and postoperative follow-up in GORD.

METHODS

From 40 patients 2 histopathologists graded and scored 191 oesophageal biopsies in a blinded manner to evaluate inter- and intraobserver variation pre- and postoperatively. Correlation between preoperative histology and objective clinical findings (endoscopy, esophageal 24-hour pH monitoring, and manometry) was calculated as well.

RESULTS

Pathologist I interpreted 16 (50%) preoperative biopsies as normal, 5 (16%) with mild, 4 (12.5%) moderate, and 7 (21.9%) severe reflux changes. Pathologist II interpreted 11 (35.5%) preoperative biopsies as normal, 11 (35.5%) with mild, 6 (19.4%) moderate, and 3 (9.7%) severe reflux changes. In preoperative biopsies, interobserver variation was 33.8% and intraobserver variation 9.7%. A positive correlation was detectable between preoperative endoscopic and morphologic findings; no correlation existed between either acid reflux or LES pressure and oesophageal morphology. Normal pH monitoring and fundic wrap were noted postoperatively in all cases. In postoperative histology no significant differences according to pathologist I existed when compared with preoperative changes: 22 normal (69%), 7 mild (22%), 1 moderate (3.1%), and 2 severe (6.3%). Compared to preoperative analysis, pathologist II interpreted 24 (77%, p = 0.001) of the postoperative findings as normal, 1 (3%, p = 0.003) as mild, 4 (12.9%, n.s.) as moderate, and 2 (6.5% n.s.) as severe reflux changes. In postoperative biopsies interobserver variation was 21.1% and intraobserver variation 5.6%.

CONCLUSION

The role of oesophageal histology in preoperative diagnosis and postoperative follow-up of GORD may be considered limited.

Biopsy assessment of drug efficacy in the gastrointestinal tract

When using biopsy pathology in clinical pharmacology to assess drug efficacy in the gastrointestinal tract, a number of questions must be answered: Is the biopsy necessary or more effective than macroscopic views by endoscopy? Can we extract maximal information from the specimen? Are there surrogate serum or other markers that give an overall measure of disease and/or improvement? Indeed, clinicopathological correlation is of paramount importance. If biopsy is to be used, it is important to utilize appropriate scoring systems. Many grading systems use continuous spectra, which are ordinal categorical variables and therefore a grading system of assigned 'numbers' which cannot be used in processes that require continuous variables such as linear regression. The use of grading vs a 'true' score with real numbers must be carefully considered, the site and number of biopsies must be precisely chosen and interobserver reproducibility of results evaluated before undertaking drug trials. Immunocytochemistry and in situ hybridization, however, can provide quantifiable molecular information related to mechanisms of drug action. The biopsy is of significant value as it is a true in vivo assessment if the above caveats are taken into account. However, further work is needed to determine sound histological criteria to assess the efficacy of drugs for use in gastrointestinal disease.

Utility of esophageal biopsy in the diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease

This study evaluated the accuracy of esophageal biopsy for the diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) in adults. Thirty-five patients with reflux symptoms and a normal endoscopy were prospectively evaluated using esophageal biopsies, 24-h ambulatory pH monitoring and symptomatic response 4 weeks after an increase in antireflux therapy. Biopsies were scored for the total number of typical histologic reflux features seen. Patients were considered to have NERD if both pH-metry was positive and step-up therapy was successful. Biopsies were then compared to this predefined gold standard. Biopsy was most sensitive (62%) but poorly specific (27%) when one or more histologic reflux features were seen. A threshold of three or more histologic features improved the specificity (91%) but reduced sensitivity (31%). Response to step-up therapy was associated with 100% sensitivity and 100% negative predictive value when compared to biopsy and pH-metry as an alternate combined gold standard. In conclusion, biopsy is insensitive in diagnosing NERD but reasonably specific if three or more typical histologic reflux features are present.

Histological changes in the oesophageal squamous mucosa: correlation with ambulatory 24 hour pH monitoring

AIMS

To determine the value of squamous mucosal histology in the assessment of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms.

METHODS

Sixty six patients with reflux symptoms underwent endoscopy with oesophageal biopsy, manometry, and 24 hour oesophageal pH testing. The following histological features were assessed in squamous mucosa: the degree of basal cell hyperplasia, the degree of papillary zone elongation, and the density of neutrophil and eosinophil infiltration. Comparisons were made between the histological findings and the oesophageal function tests.

RESULTS

The correlation between the traditionally accepted histological markers of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in squamous mucosa and 24 hour pH testing was predominantly negative, with the exception of neutrophil inflammation in the squamous mucosa of patients with complicated reflux disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was unable to confirm the value of the Ismail-Beigi criteria as histological markers of acid reflux. By inference, biopsy of the oesophageal squamous mucosa is of limited value in the assessment of patients with reflux symptoms.