Figures
Abstract
Aims
To assess the contribution of 24-h esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH (MII-pH) monitoring and high resolution endoscopy (HRE) with i-scan imaging in differentiating non erosive reflux disease (NERD) from functional heartburn (FH).
Methods
This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with heartburn from the Endoscopy Unit. NERD patients and FH patients were defined by 24-h MII-pH monitoring and white light endoscopy. Minimal mucosal changes were assessed by HRE with i-scan imaging.
Results
Total of 156 consecutive patients with heartburn but without esophageal mucosal erosions were studied. Forty-eight of these subjects had NERD, with increased acid exposure time (AET) and positive SAP and/or SI. Eighteen had FH with normal AET and negative SAP and SI. When compared to FH patients and healthy controls, NERD patients had significantly increased number of total acid reflux episodes, as well as increased number of weakly acidic reflux episodes (p<0.01). The rate of proximal reflux episodes in NERD patients was higher than that of FH patients and healthy controls (p<0.01). Irregular or blurring of the Z-line (58.3%) and white mucosal turbidity (47.9%) were the most common endoscopic findings of minimal mucosal changes observed in this study. NERD patients had more prevalent minimal changes than FH patients and the controls (87.5%vs. 66.6%vs. 61.9%; p = 0.004) with sensitivity of 87.5%. Histopathological evaluation showed that NERD patients had significantly higher average scores of intercellular spaces dilation (2.82±0.9 vs. 1.2±0.6, p = 0.005) and papillae elongation (2.65±1.0 vs. 1.5±0.8, p = 0.014), but not for basal cell proliferation (1.6±1.3 vs. 1.0±0.9, p = 0.070). The histological scores of the NERD patients were 7.1±1.2, which were higher than those of FH patients (3.4±1.0, p = 0.004).
Citation: Chu C, Du Q, Li C, Zhang L, Zhou X, Zuo F, et al. (2017) Ambulatory 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring and high resolution endoscopy distinguish patients with non-erosive reflux disease from those with functional heartburn. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175263. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175263
Editor: John Green, University Hospital Llandough, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: November 30, 2016; Accepted: March 23, 2017; Published: April 6, 2017
This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: This work was supported by grants from the Science Technology Development Projects of Shangdong Province and Jinan City, award ID number 2013G0021804 and 201121001, respectively (CC and YL).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The symptom of heartburn, defined as “a burning sensation behind the breastbone”, is associated with the occurrence of acid reflux events in most patients [1, 2]. Traditionally, heartburn is considered as the cardinal manifestation of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), which allows clinical diagnosis without the need for any further invasive investigations [3]. However, patients with functional heartburn (FH), another common esophageal disease, also have symptom of heartburn, but without proven gastro-esophageal reflux [4, 5]. Patients with these two disorders share similar clinical manifestations, including normal esophageal appearance on traditional endoscopy and unsatisfactory response to acid suppressive therapy [4], particularly in cases with absent histopathology-based esophageal motility disorders. Unfortunately, treatment of FH remains an individual approach in most clinical practice and largely empirical due to its poor response to acid suppressive therapy and accompanying psychopathological component [6]. Therefore, monitoring heartburn in patients primarily diagnosed with NERD allows one to distinguish them from those with true FH.
Multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH (MII-pH) monitoring is a novel technique that allows characterization of acid exposure and assessment of extent of reflux in the proximal esophagus. Combined with symptom association probability (SAP), MII-pH monitoring permits one to characterize heartburn with more accuracy and to also explore the role of weakly acidic reflux events in provoking symptoms in patients with NERD and FH [7, 8]. This technique allows stratification of heterogeneous symptoms from NERD or FH patients with heartburn but negative endoscopic findings and separation of these patients into NERD or functional heartburn groups.
Although it is debatable [9], more and more gastroenterologists accept minimal changes as positive endoscopic findings for patients with NERD [10–13]. Minimal mucosal changes such as erythema, edema, irregular or blurring of the Z-line, friability, and white mucosal turbidity have been evaluated in patients with NERD [9, 14], functional dyspepsia [15, 16] and in healthy subjects [10]. Lei et al. [14] showed that the presence of minimal change esophagitis was associated with NERD and indicated esophageal acid exposure. To distinguish NERD from FH patients, Luo et al. [17] used autofluorescence imaging (AFI) endoscopy to observe inconspicuous lesions. They showed that the presence of purple lines in the distal esophagus on AFI were observed in 90.5%of patients with NERD, but only in 10% of FH patient. The sensitivity and specificity of AFI in differentiating NERD from FH were 90.5% and 90.0%, respectively.
I-scan endoscopy is a new digital chromo-endoscopy optical enhancement technique. It is software-based real-time modification of image sharpness, hue and contrast provides high resolution images that improve identification of minimal change lesions [18]. Kim et al. [19] showed that i-scan endoscopy identified more minimal changes than conventional endoscopy and therefore increased the efficiency of GERD diagnosis. More recently, a cohort study was conducted to assess the efficacy of i-scan endoscopy in detecting minimal change lesions in dyspeptic patients with or without GERD [20]. They showed that i-scan endoscopy detected more minimal change esophagitis in GERD patients than non-GERD patients, albeit with a low sensitivity and specificity. Hence, whether i-scan endoscopy is capable of differentiating NERD from FH remain to be determined.
In the present study, in a series of patients with heartburn but negative conventional endoscopic findings, we retrospectively compared the characteristics of reflux episodes using MII-pH monitoring and high resolution endoscopy (HRE) with i-scan to test the efficacy of i-scan endoscopy for detecting minimal changes. We also want to determine whether observed differences using MII-pH monitoring and high resolution endoscopy allow us to distinguish NERD from FH.
Materials and methods
Study design
We retrospectively studied a series of patients from a prospectively-established database with typical GERD symptoms, i.e., heartburn lasting for more than 6 months and occurring at least three times weekly, from the endoscopy unit of Qilu Hospital between April 2010 and December 2014. Consecutive outpatients with GERD symptoms were recruited.
Based on the results obtained from 24-h MII-pH monitoring and white light endoscopy, the subjects were classified into two groups according to the Rome III criteria [4]: (1) NERD group were defined with typical reflux symptoms, negative upper endoscopy and abnormal esophageal acid exposure from impedance–pH monitoring. (2) Diagnosis of FH was made if there was normal endoscopic appearance of the gastro-esophageal junction in combination with a normal acid exposure time (AET) without any symptom association (negative SI and SAP). Hypersensitive esophagus was defined as having normal AET and number of reflux episodes but positive SI or SAP. Patients without any reflux symptoms with negative endoscopic findings were recruited as healthy controls.
Exclusion criteria were as follows: age <18 years, reflux esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, esophageal varices, evidence of cancer or mass lesion in the esophagus, gastric lesions (ulcer, cardiac polyp, cancer), previous thoracic, esophageal, or gastric surgery, significant untreated medical conditions, history of alcohol or drug abuse, or severe uncontrolled coagulopathy. The study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Qilu Hospital, Shandong University.
Technique of 24h MII-pH monitoring
All 24-h MII-pH monitoring procedures performed in patients and controls used a 2.1-mmdiameter catheter (Medical Measurement Systems B.V., Enschede, Holland). The catheter positions in the distal esophagus were determined using the pH step-up method [21]. The lower four impedance sensors were positioned at the distal esophagus (3, 5, 7 and 9 cm above the LES), and the upper two measuring sensors placed at the proximal esophagus (15 and 17 cm above the LES) respectively to measure the impedance data. All patients and subjects were provided with and instructed to keep a diary to record exact timing of meals, supine and upright positions, as well as symptoms such as heartburn, regurgitation and non-cardiac chest pain. Patients had no restrictions on meals except for food with pH<4. Data from MII-pH monitoring were uploaded and analyzed using dedicated software (BioView Analysis; Sandhill Scientific, USA). All data were analyzed by one investigator who was blinded to patients’ clinical information.
Gastro-esophageal reflux parameters
The variables of the impedance signals included total number of reflux episodes in terms of composition (liquid, gas, and mixed reflux episodes), and pH (acidic, weakly acidic, and non-acidic), total number of reflux episodes, AET (% time with esophageal pH<4), proximal extent of the refluxate, symptom association probability (SAP), symptom index (SI) and symptomatic response to proton pump inhibitors (PPI). The criteria for these parameters were described previously by others [22–24]. SAP values of ≥ 95% are considered positive [25].
I-scan endoscopy procedure
All patients underwent high resolution white light endoscopy using i-scan technology (Pentax, EC, -3890i, Tokyo, Japan). Preparation of patients for endoscopic procedure was similar to that of standard upper endoscopy. During the procedures, the upper gastrointestinal tract was first carefully visualized using standard white light endoscopy alone without i-scan. Subsequently, the tone enhancement esophageal mode was activated by pressing the corresponding button at the endoscope control head and the lower esophagus and the gastro-esophageal junction was re-inspected. The shape of Z-line and mucosal appearance near gastro-esophageal junction was observed. When analyses was performed, the stored esophageal images were carefully evaluated based on established endoscopic criteria: blurring or irregular Z-line, erythema, edema, friability, white turbid discoloration, and/or accentuation of mucosal folds according to the LA classification system with Japanese modifications and the other findings of minimal changes [9, 26–28]. At the end of the procedures, biopsy specimens were obtained from lower esophagus of each individual and were sent for histopathologic examination.
Histopathologic evaluation
For histopathology, we retrospectively examined microscopic changes of the distal esophageal epithelium including dilated intercellular spaces, elongation of the papillae and proliferation of basal cells according to the histological severity scores established by Kandulski et al. in 2013 [29]. The degrees of these microscopic changes were re-assessed and semi-quantitatively scored as 0 (absent), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), or 3 (severe) on hematoxylin–eosin-stained slides. Histopathologic evaluation was performed by one investigator who was blinded to patient information.
Statistical analysis
Data were expressed as mean±SD. Comparisons between continuous variables were analyzed using paired Student’s t-test at each esophageal level. Differences in proportions and categorical variables were compared using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Differences were considered statistically significant when p<0.05. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to analyze the relationships among impedance-pH features, HRE and histologic changes.
Results
Patient characteristics
As shown in Fig 1, overall, 103 participants, including 82 subjects with heartburn and 21 healthy controls, were eligible for final analysis. According to combined MII-pH monitoring, 48 (58.5%) had positive SAP and/or positive SI (NERD group). Thirty patients had normal distal esophageal AETs, and 18(21.9%) of those had negative SAP and SI (FH group). Twelve patients (14.6%) from this group had hyper sensitive esophagus (normal AET and positive SAP and/or SI) and were excluded (Fig 1).
As shown in Table 1, the demographic data showed that there was no difference in the mean ages of patients with NERD (22 men, mean age 49.4 years; range 34–59) and FH (8 men, mean age 46.3 years; range 33–61) with those of subjects in the control group (p>0.05). The mean body mass index (BMI) was not higher in the NERD group and FH group compared with controls (p = 0.536). The DeMeester scores were higher for NERD patients than FH patients and controls (48±37 vs. 24±19 and 20±17, p = 0.002). The AET of NERD group (7.3±2.9) was higher than that of FH (4.3±2.7) and controls (3.9±2.8) (p = 0.001). Similar results of SAP (66.7% vs. 22.2% and 16.7%, p = 0.001) and positive SI (52.1% vs.22.2% and 9.5%, p = 0.001) were found between the two groups. As for the reflux episodes, NERD patients had a significantly increased number of total and acid reflux episodes (p<0.01) when compared with FH, but not for the number of weakly acidic reflux and gas episodes (p>0.05). The rate of proximal reflux episodes in patients with NERD was higher than that of FH patients and the controls (52.6% vs. 22.3% and 16.7%, p< 0.01; Table 1).
Evaluation of HRE findings
Patients with NERD showed more minimal change lesions in distal esophageal epithelium on HRE with i-scan imaging (Fig 2). The Z-line changes included blurring, irregular, tongue like extensions, islands and zigzag appearance (Fig 2A). Thirty-six out of 48 (75%) NERD patients showed one or more Z-line changes, which were more common than that of FH group (50%) and controls (47.6%; P = 0.040). Blurring or irregular Z-lines in 28 NERD patients (58.3%) were the most common i-scan endoscopic findings of minimal changes in this study.
A. Blurring Z-line (yellow arrow), uneven and friable mucosa at the squamo-columnar junction (red arrow). B. columnar islands (red arrow) and white mucosal turbidity (yellow arrow) was seen above the Z-line.
Esophageal mucosa near gastro-esophageal junction had uneven and rough appearance with white mucosal turbidity, edema and friability (Fig 2B). As shown in Table 2, Thirty-five out of 48 (72.9%) NERD patients showed one or more minimal mucosal changes which were significantly higher than that of FH group 7/18 (38.9%) and controls 9/21 (42.8%; p = 0.014). White mucosal turbidity was the most common endoscopic findings (23/48, 47.9%) of minimal mucosal changes in NERD patients in this study.
In total, there were 42/48 (87.5%) NERD patients with at least one or more minimal changes in this study, which significantly higher than that of FH patients (12/18, 66.6%) and controls (13/21, 61.9%; p = 0.004). These results showed that one minimal esophageal change or more had an accuracy of 80.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 70–89 in diagnosing NERD patients from those with heartburn with 87.5% sensitivity (95% CI 82–94), 61.1% specificity (95% CI 56–72), 85.7% positive predictive value (95% CI 78–92) and 64.7% negative predictive value (95% CI 60–75; Table 2).
Histopathological findings
Routine histological examination of the esophagus was performed in 42 NERD patients and 14 FH patients. Microscopic changes in the distal esophageal epithelium were observed. No eosinophilia or eosinophilic gastroenteritis were found in this study. Histological scores were used for evaluating microscopic changes between the two groups (Table 3). NERD patients had significantly higher average scores of intercellular spaces dilation (2.82±0.9 vs.1.2±0.6, p = 0.005) and papillae elongation (2.65±1.0 vs.1.5±0.8, p = 0.014), but not for basal cell proliferation (1.6±1.3 vs.1.0±0.9, p = 0.070). The histological score of the NERD patients was 7.1±1.2, which was higher than that of FH patients (3.4±1.0, p = 0.004; Table 3.
Multivariate analysis
To better evaluate discrimination among the three subgroups, we added multivariate regression analysis for the pH/impedance features, HRE and histologic changes. The result showed that there were significant correlations of acid reflux with minimal changes of the esophagus (r = 0.752, p<0.001) and histological score (r = 0.724, p<0.001).
Discussion
NERD and FH share common manifestations, which makes it difficult to distinguish between them without performing more invasive tests [30, 31]. In this retrospectively cohort study, we showed that the proportion of total reflux episodes and acid exposure time in NERD patients were higher than that of FH group and healthy controls. The results were similar to that observed by Savarino et al. [32]. The percentage of reflux episodes reaching the proximal esophagus in NERD patients was also greater than that of FH patients and controls.
Conventional assessment of impedance–pH monitoring includes AET and SAP/SI evaluations. However, because SAP and SI are determined by chance occurrences when reflux rates are low [33], clinical value of SAP and SI for distinguishing FH from GERD has been questioned in recent years. Recently, more sensitive makers have been explored by several gastroenterologists. Frazzoni et al. [34] reported that combined assessment of the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and the mean nocturnal baseline impedance allows objective diagnosis of hypersensitive esophagus independently of and significantly more often than that of using SAP and SI. Kandulski et al. [35] performed a prospective study by measuring intraluminal baseline impedance. They showed that measurement of baseline impedance in the lower esophagus can differentiate patients with erosive reflux diseases or NERD from patients with FH (78% sensitivity and 71% specificity), and therefore should be considered as a diagnostic tool for patients with proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux. Hence, in clinical practice, when SAP and SI offer uncertain results, the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and levels of baseline impedance should be analyzed to avoid overlooking FH diagnoses.
In this study, Z-line minimal changes were seen in 75% NERD patients, whereas it was only seen in 50%of FH patients and 47.6%ofcontrols. When minimal changes were analyzed by using more than one endoscopic finding, same results were found between the two groups with sensitivity of 87.5% and positive predictive value of 85.7%. This was consistent with Rey JW et al.’s result [18] but not that of Netinatsunton et al.’s study [20]. Rey and his colleges performed high definition endoscopy with i-scan imaging and Lugol’s solution for the detection of inflammation in NERD patients. They showed 82.5%sensitivity and 100% positive predictive values for i-scan endoscopy in detecting minimal erosive reflux disease. The difference may be due to lack of standardized definition for minimal changes, lack of definitive gold standard test for minimal changes, and different study populations, endoscopic instruments and imaging technologies [10, 20, 36]. Therefore, multi-center prospective studies need to be conducted with standard definitions and more accurate diagnostic tools in the future.
Compromised esophageal mucosal integrity is now considered an etiology for GERD. Dilated intercellular space (DIS) of the esophageal epithelium is a sensitive marker for tissue damage in GERD patients and is the most appropriate marker for mucosal damage evaluation in NERD patients [37, 38]. Morphologic changes in esophageal mucosa observed using transmission electron microscopy, confocal laser microendoscopy and standard histopathologic evaluations have been reported in animal experiments and several clinical studies, which allows one to distinguish NERD from FH [29, 30, 39]. Kandulski et al. used histopathological sum scores to differentiate FH patients from NERD patients with high statistical significance (p< 0.0001). A cut-off value of ≥5 distinguishes NERD and FH patients with 85% sensitivity and 64% specificity [29]. In our study, using histological scores, we documented morphologic changes using light microscopy. Our results showed that NERD patients had much higher scores than did the FH group. This is consisting with our previous work of measuring intercellular spaces by using transmission electron microscopy [40].
To the best of our knowledge, there were no more published studies using this histologic score for the diagnosis of NERD and FH. Savarino et al. [30] evaluated histological scores in esophageal biopsies of NERD, FH patients and healthy controls by light microscopy. Based on the scores, they were able to differentiate NERD patients from FH patients with 79% accuracy 74% sensitivity and 86% specificity. They found no difference in the prevalence of microscopic esophagitis between FH patients and healthy controls. Although we did not have exact measurements of intercellular spaces in the current study, our result demonstrated pathologic changes correlated with acid reflux in NERD patients but not with FH and control subjects. Similar results had been reported in PPI-refractory NERD patients with heartburn when compared with FH patients [29, 35]. These findings suggest that esophageal biopsies using standard histopathologic evaluation are useful in differentiating NERD from FH. In addition, we performed multivariate regression analysis to analyze the relationships among pH/impedance features, HRE and histologic changes. The result showed that there were significant correlations between acid reflux with minimal changes of the esophagus (r = 0.752, p<0.001) and histological scores (r = 0.724, p<0.001).
The present study has several limitations. First, esophageal manometry studies were not performed in these subjects. According to the Rome III criteria, FH patients may have esophageal motility disorders. Savarino et al. [41] reported that esophageal motility disorders were present in 4% of FH and NERD patients, and their prevalence increases according to the GERD severity. However, esophageal manometry was not widely used in clinical practice during that time frame in China. Second, we did not analyze the characteristics of patients with hypersensitive esophagus. Another limitation was lack of data after PPI treatment in patients with positive i-scan endoscopy. It is unclear whether standard PPI treatment reverses abnormal findings on i-scan endoscopy. A previous study showed that 6-month omeprazole treatment completely restored DIS [42], the primary microscopic manifestation in NERD patients, which indicated that positive endoscopic findings are likely to diminish after PPI therapy. In this study we calculated the accuracy of endoscopy by using pH/impedance for diagnosing patients with heartburn, but the later methodology has limitations and needs further validation in larger studies in the future.
In conclusion, there is large overlap of NERD and FH in patients with heartburn but negative conventional endoscopy. I-scan endoscopy is a simple and useful tool for diagnosing minimal changes in NERD patients. Minimal changes could be useful markers to support clinical diagnosis of NERD in patients with heartburn. Combined 24-h MII-pH monitoring and i-scan endoscopy could distinguish NERD patients from those with FH.
Acknowledgments
A special thanks to the Associate Professor Wenhui Liu for consultation and help with statistical analyses.
Author Contributions
- Conceptualization: CC YL.
- Data curation: CC YL.
- Formal analysis: CC QD CL LZ FZ XZ FL YZ.
- Funding acquisition: CC YL.
- Investigation: CC CL.
- Methodology: CC YL.
- Project administration: CC.
- Resources: CC YL.
- Supervision: CC YL.
- Validation: CC.
- Visualization: CC QD CL LZ FZ GX.
- Writing – original draft: CC.
- Writing – review & editing: CC GX YL.
References
- 1. Locke GR 3rd, Talley NJ, Fett SL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ 3rd. Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(5):1448–56. pmid:9136821
- 2. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R, Global Consensus G. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2006;101(8):1900–20; quiz 43. pmid:16928254
- 3. Carlsson R, Dent J, Bolling-Sternevald E, Johnsson F, Junghard O, Lauritsen K, et al. The usefulness of a structured questionnaire in the assessment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. 1998;33(10):1023–9. pmid:9829354
- 4. Galmiche JP, Clouse RE, Balint A, Cook IJ, Kahrilas PJ, Paterson WG, et al. Functional esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(5):1459–65. pmid:16678559
- 5. Zerbib F, Bruley des Varannes S, Simon M, Galmiche JP. Functional heartburn: definition and management strategies. Current gastroenterology reports. 2012;14(3):181–8. pmid:22451252
- 6. Johnston BT, Lewis SA, Collins JS, McFarland RJ, Love AH. Acid perception in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is dependent on psychosocial factors. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. 1995;30(1):1–5. pmid:7701244
- 7. Sifrim D, Castell D, Dent J, Kahrilas PJ. Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas reflux. Gut. 2004;53(7):1024–31. pmid:15194656
- 8. Zerbib F, Roman S, Ropert A, des Varannes SB, Pouderoux P, Chaput U, et al. Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring and symptom analysis in GERD: a study in patients off and on therapy. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2006;101(9):1956–63. pmid:16848801
- 9. Kim JH, Park H, Lee YC, group Ms. Is minimal change esophagitis really part of the spectrum of endoscopic findings of gastroesophageal reflux disease? A prospective, multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2011;43(3):190–5. pmid:21365512
- 10. Altorki NK, Lee PC, Liss Y, Meherally D, Korst RJ, Christos P, et al. Multifocal neoplasia and nodal metastases in T1 esophageal carcinoma: implications for endoscopic treatment. Ann Surg. 2008;247(3):434–9. pmid:18376186
- 11. Manner H, May A, Pech O, Gossner L, Rabenstein T, Gunter E, et al. Early Barrett's carcinoma with "low-risk" submucosal invasion: long-term results of endoscopic resection with a curative intent. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2008;103(10):2589–97. pmid:18785950
- 12. Hoshihara Y. [Endoscopic findings of GERD]. Nihon rinsho Japanese journal of clinical medicine. 2004;62(8):1459–64. pmid:15344535
- 13. Lundell LR, Dent J, Bennett JR, Blum AL, Armstrong D, Galmiche JP, et al. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut. 1999;45(2):172–80. pmid:10403727
- 14. Lei WY, Liu TT, Yi CH, Chen CL. Disease characteristics in non-erosive reflux disease with and without endoscopically minimal change esophagitis: are they different? Digestion. 2012;85(1):27–32. pmid:22156539
- 15. Tack J, Caenepeel P, Arts J, Lee KJ, Sifrim D, Janssens J. Prevalence of acid reflux in functional dyspepsia and its association with symptom profile. Gut. 2005;54(10):1370–6. pmid:15972301
- 16. Choung RS, Locke GR 3rd, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Talley NJ. Overlap of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux in the general population: one disease or distinct entities? Neurogastroenterology and motility: the official journal of the European Gastrointestinal Motility Society. 2012;24(3):229–34, e106.
- 17. Luo X, Guo XX, Wang WF, Peng LH, Yang YS, Uedo N. Autofluorescence imaging endoscopy can distinguish non-erosive reflux disease from functional heartburn: A pilot study. World journal of gastroenterology. 2016;22(14):3845–51. pmid:27076770
- 18. Rey JW, Deris N, Marquardt JU, Thomaidis T, Moehler M, Kittner JM, et al. High-definition endoscopy with iScan and Lugol's solution for the detection of inflammation in patients with nonerosive reflux disease: histologic evaluation in comparison with a control group. Diseases of the esophagus: official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus / ISDE. 2016;29(2):185–91.
- 19. Kim MS, Choi SR, Roh MH, Lee JH, Jang JS, Kim BG, et al. Efficacy of I-scan endoscopy in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease with minimal change. Clinical endoscopy. 2011;44(1):27–32. pmid:22741109
- 20. Netinatsunton N, Sottisuporn J, Attasaranya S, Witeerungrot T, Chamroonkul N, Jongboonyanuparp T, et al. i-Scan detection of minimal change esophagitis in dyspeptic patients with or without Gastroesophageal Reflux disease. BMC gastroenterology. 2016;16:4. pmid:26762316
- 21. Pehl C, Boccali I, Hennig M, Schepp W. pH probe positioning for 24-hour pH-metry by manometry or pH step-up. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16(4):375–82. pmid:15028969
- 22. Zentilin P, Iiritano E, Dulbecco P, Bilardi C, Savarino E, De Conca S, et al. Normal values of 24-h ambulatory intraluminal impedance combined with pH-metry in subjects eating a Mediterranean diet. Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2006;38(4):226–32.
- 23. Xiao YL, Lin JK, Cheung TK, Wong NY, Yang L, Hung IF, et al. Normal values of 24-hour combined esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring in the Chinese population. Digestion. 2009;79(2):109–14. pmid:19295211
- 24. Shay S, Tutuian R, Sifrim D, Vela M, Wise J, Balaji N, et al. Twenty-four hour ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring: a multicenter report of normal values from 60 healthy volunteers. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2004;99(6):1037–43. pmid:15180722
- 25. Weusten BL, Roelofs JM, Akkermans LM, Van Berge-Henegouwen GP, Smout AJ. The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology. 1994;107(6):1741–5. pmid:7958686
- 26. Hongo M, Kinoshita Y, Haruma K. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study of the histamine H2-receptor antagonist famotidine in Japanese patients with nonerosive reflux disease. Journal of gastroenterology. 2008;43(6):448–56. pmid:18600389
- 27. Joh T, Miwa H, Higuchi K, Shimatani T, Manabe N, Adachi K, et al. Validity of endoscopic classification of nonerosive reflux disease. Journal of gastroenterology. 2007;42(6):444–9. pmid:17671758
- 28. Hongo M. Minimal changes in reflux esophagitis: red ones and white ones. Journal of gastroenterology. 2006;41(2):95–9. pmid:16568367
- 29. Kandulski A, Jechorek D, Caro C, Weigt J, Wex T, Monkemuller K, et al. Histomorphological differentiation of non-erosive reflux disease and functional heartburn in patients with PPI-refractory heartburn. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2013;38(6):643–51.
- 30. Savarino E, Zentilin P, Mastracci L, Dulbecco P, Marabotto E, Gemignani L, et al. Microscopic esophagitis distinguishes patients with non-erosive reflux disease from those with functional heartburn. Journal of gastroenterology. 2013;48(4):473–82. pmid:23001252
- 31. Savarino E, Marabotto E, Zentilin P, Frazzoni M, Sammito G, Bonfanti D, et al. The added value of impedance-pH monitoring to Rome III criteria in distinguishing functional heartburn from non-erosive reflux disease. Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2011;43(7):542–7.
- 32. Savarino E, Zentilin P, Tutuian R, Pohl D, Gemignani L, Malesci A, et al. Impedance-pH reflux patterns can differentiate non-erosive reflux disease from functional heartburn patients. Journal of gastroenterology. 2012;47(2):159–68. pmid:22038553
- 33. Slaughter JC, Goutte M, Rymer JA, Oranu AC, Schneider JA, Garrett CG, et al. Caution about overinterpretation of symptom indexes in reflux monitoring for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. 2011;9(10):868–74.
- 34. Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, Furnari M, Martinucci I, Tolone S, et al. Impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity distinguishes hypersensitive esophagus from functional heartburn. Journal of gastroenterology. 2016.
- 35. Kandulski A, Weigt J, Caro C, Jechorek D, Wex T, Malfertheiner P. Esophageal intraluminal baseline impedance differentiates gastroesophageal reflux disease from functional heartburn. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. 2015;13(6):1075–81.
- 36. Edebo A, Tam W, Bruno M, Van Berkel AM, Jonson C, Schoeman M, et al. Magnification endoscopy for diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease: a proposal of diagnostic criteria and critical analysis of observer variability. Endoscopy. 2007;39(3):195–201. pmid:17236126
- 37. Calabrese C, Fabbri A, Bortolotti M, Cenacchi G, Areni A, Scialpi C, et al. Dilated intercellular spaces as a marker of oesophageal damage: comparative results in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with or without bile reflux. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2003;18(5):525–32.
- 38. Caviglia R, Ribolsi M, Maggiano N, Gabbrielli AM, Emerenziani S, Guarino MP, et al. Dilated intercellular spaces of esophageal epithelium in nonerosive reflux disease patients with physiological esophageal acid exposure. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2005;100(3):543–8. pmid:15743349
- 39. Vela MF, Craft BM, Sharma N, Freeman J, Hazen-Martin D. Refractory heartburn: comparison of intercellular space diameter in documented GERD vs. functional heartburn. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2011;106(5):844–50. pmid:21179012
- 40. Chu CL, Zhen YB, Lv GP, Li CQ, Li Z, Qi QQ, et al. Microalterations of esophagus in patients with non-erosive reflux disease: in-vivo diagnosis by confocal laser endomicroscopy and its relationship with gastroesophageal reflux. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2012;107(6):864–74. pmid:22415199
- 41. Savarino E, Zentilin P, Marabotto E, Bonfanti D, Inferrera S, Assandri L, et al. Overweight is a risk factor for both erosive and non-erosive reflux disease. Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2011;43(12):940–5.
- 42. Calabrese C, Bortolotti M, Fabbri A, Areni A, Cenacchi G, Scialpi C, et al. Reversibility of GERD ultrastructural alterations and relief of symptoms after omeprazole treatment. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2005;100(3):537–42. pmid:15743348