JOURNAL CONTENT
CONTACT

Submission of the manuscript is online via e-mail
ecgarticle@gmail.com or
cholerez@mail.ru

Tel: +7 903 250 5288

Editorial Correspondence e-mail
gastrossr@gmail.com


Publishing, Subscriptions, Sales and Advertising, Correspondence e-mail
journal@cniig.ru

Tel: +7 917 561 9505

THE RULES OF SUBMITTING AN ARTICLE

READ

Scimago Journal & Country Rank

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY

    1. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (RNRMU) (117997, Moscow, Russia)
    2. Federal Research Centre of Nutrition and Biotechnology (109240, Moscow, Russia)

    Keywords: gastroesophageal refl ux disease, high-resolution esophageal manometry, fundoplication

    Abstract:Aim. To make a review of the usefulness of the high resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal refl ux disease in accordance with the international consensus. Key points. Gastroesophageal refl ux disease (GERD) is a multifactorial disease that may be caused by anatomical defects (hiatal hernia), impaired esophageal motility (ineff ective esophageal motility, fragmented peristalsis, lack of contractility), and abnormal function of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) (decrease of the LES basal and increase in the number of transient LES relaxation), and stomach (delayed gastric emptying). The role of HRM in the diagnosis of GERD had widely been studied and the data were summarized in several consensus documents. They cover wide spectrum of the matters including indications for the methods in functional esophageal disorders (pH-impedance and esophageal manometry), the algorithm of patients’ examination, data interpretation and their implication to clinical practice. Conclusion. High-resolution esophageal manometry plays crucial role in the evaluation of esophageal motility. In GERD, this method allows to reveal predisposing factors and choose optimal treatment.

      1. Gyawali CP, Roman S, Bredenoord AJ, et. al. International GERD Consensus Working Group. Classifi cation of esophageal motor fi ndings in gastro-esophageal refl ux disease: Conclusions from an international consensus group. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017 vol.12
      2. Kaibysheva VO, Shapoval’yants SG. Th e role of functional study methods in diagnostics and the choice of treatment of gastroesophageal refl ux disease and its complications. Russian journal of Evidence-based gastroenterology = Dokazatel'naya gastroenterologiya. 2017;6(3):9–18. https://doi.org/10.17116/dokgastro2017639–18
      3. Savarino E, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M et al. International Working Group for Disorders of Gastrointestinal Motility and Function. Expert consensus document: Advances in the physiological assessment and diagnosis of GERD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2017, no.14(11), pp. 665–676.
      4. Meneghetti AT, Tedesco P, Damani T, et al. Esophageal mucosal damage may promote dysmotility and worsen esophageal acid exposure. J Gastrointest Surg, 2005, no. 9, pp.13–20.
      5. Savarino E, Gemignani L, Pohl D, et al. Oesophageal motility and bolus transit abnormalities increase in parallel with the severity of gastro-oesophageal refl ux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Th er, 2011, no.34, pp.476–86.
      6. Rengarajan A, Bolkhir A, Gor P, et al. Esophagogastric junction and esophageal body contraction metrics on high-resolution manometry predict esophageal acid burden. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017.
      7. Andolfi C, Bonavina L, Kavitt RT, et al. Importance of Esophageal Manometry and pH Monitoring in the Evaluation of Patients with Refractory Gastroesophageal Refl ux Disease: A Multicenter Study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A., 2016, no. 26(7), pp.548–50.
      8. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Kohn GP, et al. SAGES Guidelines Committee. Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Surg Endosc., 2010, no. 24(11), pp.2647–69.
      9. Wang YT, Yazaki E, Sifrim D. High-resolution Manometry: Esophageal Disorders Not Addressed by the “Chicago Classifi cation.” Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 2012, no.18(4), pp.365–372.
      10. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M et al. International High Resolution Manometry Working Group. Th e Chicago Classifi cation of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2015, no.27(2), pp.160–174.
      11. Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus. Gut., 2018.
      12. Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Am J Gastroenterol., 2013, no.108, pp.308–328.
      13. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF; American Gastroenterological Association Institute; Clinical Practice and Quality Management Committee. American Gastroenterological Association Institute technical review on the management of gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Gastroenterology., 2008, no.135(4), pp.1392–1413
      14. Wang K, Sampliner R et al. AGA updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol, 2008, no.103, pp.788–797.
      15. Ivashkin V. T., Mayev I. V., Trukhmanov A. S., et al. Diagnostics and treatment of gastroesophageal refl ux disease: clinical guidelines of the Russian gastroenterological Association. Ross z gastroenterol gepatol koloproktol 2017; 27(4):75–95. DOI: 10.22416/1382–4376–2017–27– 4–75–95
      16. Herregods TV, Troelstra M, Weijenborg PW, et al. Patients with refractory refl ux symptoms oft en do not have GERD. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2015, vol.27, pp. 1267–1273.
      17. Chan WW, Haroian LR, Gyawali CP. Value of preoperative esoph- ageal function studies before laparoscopic antirefl ux surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011, vol.25, pp.2943–2949.
      18. Hemmink GJ, Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, et al. Supragastric belching in patients with refl ux symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol, 2009, vol.104, pp.1992–1997.
      19. Kessing BF, Bredenoord AJ, Velosa M, et al. Supragastric belches are the main determinants of troublesome belching symptoms in patients with gastro-oesophageal refl ux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Th er., 2012, vol.35, pp.1073–1079.
      20. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006, vol.130, pp. 466–1479.
      21. Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, Sifrim D, et al. Aerophagia, gastric, and supragastric belching: a study using intraluminal electrical impedance monitoring. Gut., 2004, vol. 53, pp.1561–1565.
      22. Rommel N. et al. Rumination or belching‐ regurgitation? Diff erential diagnosis using oesophageal impedancemanometry. Neurogastroenterol. Motil., 2010, vol. 22, pp.97–104.
      23. Sweis R, Anggiansah A, Wong T, et al. Normative values and interobserver agreement for liquid and solid bolus swallows in upright and supine positions as assessed by esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2011, vol. 23, pp.509–198.
      24. Niebisch S, Wilshire CL, Peters JH. Systematic analysis of esophageal pressure topography in high-resolution manometry of 68 normal volunteers. Dis Esophagus., 2013, vol.26, pp.651–660.
      25. Bogte A, Bredenoord AJ, Oors J, et al. Normal values for esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2013, vol.25, pp.762–579.
      26. Kessing BF, Weijenborg PW, Smout AJ, et al. Water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry: normal values and validation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol., 2014, vol.306, pp.491–495.
      27. Nicodeme F, Pipa-Muniz M, Khanna K, et al. Quantifying esophagogastric junction contractility with a novel HRM topographic metric, the EGJ-Contractile Integral: normative values and preliminary evaluation in PPI non-responders. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2014, vol.26, pp.353–360.
      28. Weijenborg PW, Kessing BF, Smout AJ, et al. Normal values for solid- state esophageal high-resolution manometry in a European population; an overview of all current metrics. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2014, vol.26, pp.654–659.
      29. do Carmo GC, Jafari J, Sifrim D, et al. Normal esophageal pressure topography metrics for data derived from the Sandhill-Unisensor high-resolution manometry assembly in supine and sitting positions. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2015, vol. 27, pp.285–292.
      30. Jasper D, Freitas-Queiroz N, Hollenstein M, et al. Prolonged measurement improves the assessment of the barrier function of the esophagogastric junction by high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2017, vol.29.
      31. Xie C, Wang J, Li Y, et al. Esophagogastric junction contractility integral refl ected the anti-refl ux barrier dysfunction in GERD patients. J Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2017, vol. 23, pp.27–33.
      32. Wang D, Patel A, Mello M, et al. Esophagogastric junction contractile integral (EGJ-CI) quantifi es changes in EGJ barrier function with surgical intervention. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2016, vol.28, pp.639–646.
      33. Nicodeme, F. et al. Esophagogastric Junction pressure morphology: comparison between a station pull‐ through and real‐time 3D‐HRM representation. Neurogastroenterol. Motil., 2013, vol. 25, pp.591–598.
      34. Nicodeme, F. et al. Adding a radial dimension to the assessment of esophagogastric junction relaxation: validation studies of the 3D‐eSleeve. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol., 2012, vol. 303, pp.275–280.
      35. Pandolfi no JE, Kim H, Ghosh SK, et al. High-resolution manometry of the EGJ: an analysis of crural diaphragm function in GERD. Am J Gastroenterol, 2007, vol.102, pp.1056–1063.
      36. Ham H, Cho YK, Lee HH, et al. Esophagogastric junction contractile integral and morphology: Two high-resolution manometry metrics of the anti-refl ux barrier.J Gastroenterol Hepatol., 2017, vol. 32, pp.1443–1449.
      37. Tolone S, de Cassan C, de Bortoli N, et al. Esophagogastric junction morphology is associated with a positive impedance-pH monitoring in patients with GERD. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2015, vol. 27, pp.1175–1182.
      38. Kessing BF, Conchillo JM, Bredenoord AJ, Smout AJ, Masclee AA. Review article: the clinical relevance of transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations in gastro-oesophageal refl ux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Th er., 2011.
      39. Mittal RK, Holloway RH, Penagini R, et al. Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. Gastroenterology., 1995, vol. 109, pp.601–610.
      40. Sifrim D, Holloway R, Silny J, et al. Composition of the postprandial refl uxate in patients with gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Am J Gastroenterol., 2001, vol.96, pp.647–655.
      41. Trudgill NJ, Riley SA. Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations are no more frequent in patients with gastroesophageal refl ux disease than in asymptomatic volunteers. Am J Gastroenterol., 2001, vol.96, pp.2569–2574.
      42. Roman S, Holloway R, Keller J, et al. Validation of criteria for the defi nition of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations using high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017, vol. 29, pp.12920.
      43. Nicodeme, F. et al. Quantifying esophagogastric junction contractility with a novel HRM topographic metric, the EGJ‐Contractile Integral: normative values and preliminary evaluation in PPI non‐responders. Neurogastroenterol. Motil., 2014, vol. 26, pp.353–360.
      44. Gor, P. et al. Interrogation of esophagogastric junction barrier function using the esophagogastric junction contractile integral: an observational cohort study. Dis. Esophagus., 2016, vol. 29, pp. 820–828.
      45. Sloan, S. & Kahrilas, P. J. Impairment of esophageal emptying with hiatal hernia. Gastroenterology., 1991, vol. 100, pp. 596–605.
      46. Wang D, Patel A, Mello M, et al. Esophagogastric junction contractile integral (EGJ-CI) quantifi es changes in EGJ barrier function with surgical intervention. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2016, vol. 28, pp.639–46.
      47. Xie C, Wang J, Li Y, et al. Esophagogastric junction contractility integral refl ected the anti-refl ux barrier dysfunction in GERD patients. J Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2017, vol. 23, pp.27–33.
      48. Tolone S, De Bortoli N, Marabotto E, et al. Esophagogastric junction contractility for clinical assessment in patients with GERD: a real added value? Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2015, vol. 27, pp.1423–1431.
      49. Jasper D, Freitas-Queiroz N, Hollenstein M, et al. Prolonged measurement improves the assessment of the barrier function of the esophagogastric junction by high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2017, vol. 29.
      50. Reddy CA, Patel A, Gyawali CP. Impact of symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) on esophageal motor disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2017, vol.29
      51. Ribolsi M, Balestrieri P, Emerenziani S, et al. Weak peristalsis with large breaks is associated with higher acid exposure and delayed refl ux clearance in the supine position in GERD patients. Am J Gastroenterol., 2014, vol.109, pp. 46–51.
      52. Savarino E, Gemignani L, Pohl D, et al. Oesophageal motility and bolus transit abnormalities increase in parallel with the severity of gastro-oesophageal refl ux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Th er.,2011, vol.34, pp.476–486.
      53. Ribolsi M, Balestrieri P, Biasutto D, et al. Role of mixed refl ux and hypomotility with delayed refl ux clearance in patients with non-cardiac chest pain. J Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2016, vol.22, pp.606–612.
      54. Lee J, Anggiansah A, Anggiansah R, et al. Eff ects of age on the gastroesophageal junction, esophageal motility, and refl ux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol., 2007, vol.5, pp. 1392–1398.
      55. Simren M, Silny J, Holloway R, et al. Relevance of ineffective oesophageal motility during oesophageal acid clearance. Gut., 2003, vol.52, pp.784–790.
      56. Lin S, Ke M, Xu J, et al. Impaired esophageal emptying in refl ux disease. Am J Gastroenterol., 1994, vol.89, pp.1003–1006.
      57. Wykypiel H, Hugl B, Gadenstaetter M, et al. Laparoscopic partial posterior (Toupet) fundoplication improves esophageal bolus propagation on scintigraphy. Surg Endosc., 2008, vol.22, pp.1845–1851.
      58. Strate U, Emmermann A, Fibbe C, et al. Laparoscopic fundoplication: Nissen versus Toupet two-year outcome of a prospective randomized study of 200 patients regarding preoperative esophageal motility. Surg Endosc., 2008, vol.22, pp.21–30.
      59. Shirazi S, Schulze-Delrieu K, Custer-Hagen T, et al. Motility changes in opossum esophagus from experimental esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci., 1989, vol.34, pp.1668–1676.
      60. Liebermann-Meff ert D, Klaus D, Vosmeer S, et al. Eff ect of intraesophageal bile and acid (HCl) perfusion on the action of the lower esophageal sphincter. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl., 1984, vol.92, pp.237–241.
      61. Cao W, Cheng L, Behar J, et al. Proinfl ammatory cytokines alter/reduce esophageal circular muscle contraction in experimental cat esophagitis. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol., 2004, vol.287, pp.1131–1139.
      62. Salapatek AM, Diamant NE. Assessment of neural inhibition of the lower esophageal sphincter in cats with esophagitis. Gastroenterology., 1993, vol.104, pp.810–818.
      63. Eastwood GL, Castell DO, Higgs RH. Experimental esophagitis in cats impairs lower esophageal sphincter pressure. Gastroenterology., 1975, vol.69, pp.146–153.
      64. Biancani P, Billett G, Hillemeier C, et al. Acute experimental esophagitis impairs signal transduction in cat lower esophageal sphincter circular muscle. Gastroenterology., 1992, vol.103, pp.1199–1206.
      65. Heider TR, Behrns KE, Koruda MJ, et al. Fundoplication improves disordered esophageal motility. J Gastrointest Surg., 2003, vol.7, pp.159–163.
      66. Xu JY, Xie XP, Song GQ, et al. Healing of severe refl ux esophagitis with PPI does not improve esophageal dysmotility. Dis Esophagus., 2007, vol.20, pp.346–352.
      67. Timmer R, Breumelhof R, Nadorp JH, et al. Oesophageal motility and gastro-oesophageal refl ux before and aft er healing of refl ux oesophagitis. A study using 24 hour ambulatory pH and pressure monitoring. Gut., 1994, vol.35, pp1519–1522.
      68. Gyawali CP, Kushnir VM. High-resolution manometric characteristics help diff erentiate types of distal esophageal obstruction in patients with peristalsis. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2011, vol.23, pp.502–1197.
      69. Weijenborg PW, Savarino E, Kessing BF, et al. Normal values of esophageal motility aft er antirefl ux surgery; a study using high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2015, vol.27, pp.929–935.
      70. Mello MD, Shriver AR, Li Y, et al. Ineff ective esophageal motility phenotypes following fundoplication in gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2016, vol.28, pp.292–298.
      71. Kushnir VM, Prakash Gyawali C. High resolution manometry patterns distinguish acid sensitivity in non-cardiac chest pain. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011, vol. 23, pp.1066–1072.
      72. Lee H, Lee SK, Park JC, et al. Eff ect of acid swallowing on esophageal contraction in patients with heartburn related to hypersensitivity. J Gastroenterol Hepatol., 2013, vol. 28, pp.84–89.
      73. Ho SC, Chang CS, Wu CY, et al. Ineff ective esophageal motility is a primary motility disorder in gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Dig Dis Sci., 2002, vol.47, pp.652–656.
      74. Diener U, Patti MG, Molena D, et al. Esophageal dysmotility and gastroesophageal refl ux disease. J Gastrointest Surg., 2001, vol.5, pp.260–265.
      75. Chan WW, Haroian LR, Gyawali CP. Value of preoperative esophageal function studies before laparoscopic antirefl ux surgery. Surg Endosc., 2011, vol.25, pp.2943–2949.
      76. Maradey-Romero C, Gabbard S, Fass R. Treatment of esophageal motility disorders based on the chicago classifi cation. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol., 2014, vol.12(4), pp.441–55.
      77. Kaltenbach T, Crockett S, Gerson LB. Are lifestyle measures eff ective in patients with gastroesophageal refl ux disease? An evidence-based approach. Arch Intern Med., 2006, vol.166(9), pp.965–71.
      78. Blonski W, Vela MF, Freeman J, Sharma N, Castell DO. Th e eff ect of oral buspirone, pyridostigmine, and bethanechol on esophageal function evaluated with combined multichannel esophageal impedance- manometry in healthy volunteers. J Clin Gastroenterol., 2009, vol.43(3), pp. 253–60.
      79. Johnson DA, Drane WE, Curran J, et al. Metoclopramide response in patients with progres- sive systemic sclerosis. Eff ect on esophageal and gas-tric motility abnormalities. Arch Intern Med., 1987, vol. 147(9), pp.1597–601.
      80. Chrysos E, Tzovaras G, Epanomeritakis E, et al. Erythromycin enhances oesophageal motility in patients with gastro-oesophageal refl ux. ANZ J Surg., 2001, vol.71(2), pp.98–102.
      81. Chang CT, Shiau YC, Lin CC, Li TC, Lee CC, Kao CH. Improvement of esophageal and gastric motility aft er 2-week treatment of oral erythromycin in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Complicat., 2003, vol.17(3), pp.141–144.
      82. Staiano A, Clouse RE. Th e eff ects of cisapride on the topography of oesophageal peristalsis. Aliment Pharmacol Th er., 1996, vol.10(6), pp.875–82.
      83. Fox M, Menne D, Stutz B, Fried M, Schwizer W. Th e eff ects of tegaserod on oesophageal function and bolus transport in healthy volunteers: studies using concurrent high-resolution manometry and videofl uoroscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Th er., 2006, vol. 24(7), pp.1017–27.
      84. Scarpellini E, Vos R, Blondeau K, et al. Th e eff ects of itopride on oesophageal motility and lower oesophageal sphincter function in man. Aliment Pharmacol Th er., 2011, vol. 33, pp.99–105.
      85. Kessing BF, Smout AJ, Bennink RJ, et al. Prucalopride decreases esophageal acid exposure and accelerates gastric emptying in healthy subjects. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2014, vol.26, pp.1079–1086.
      86. Zerbib F, Roman S. Current Th erapeutic Options for Esophageal Motor Disorders as Defi ned by the Chicago Classifi cation. J Clin Gastroenterol., 2015, vol.49(6), pp.451–60.
      87. Sifrim D, Jafari J. Deglutitive inhibition, latency between swallow and esophageal contractions and primary esophageal motor disorders. J Neurogastroenterol Motil.,2012, vol.18, pp.6–12.
      88. Savarino E, de Bortoli N, Bellini M, et al. Practice guidelines on the use of esophageal manometry – A GISMAD-SIGE-AIGO medical position statement. Dig Liver Dis., 2016, vol.48, pp.1124–1135.
      89. Shaker A, Stoikes N, Drapekin J, et al. Multiple rapid swallow responses during esophageal high-resolution manometry refl ect esophageal body peristaltic reserve. Am J Gastroenterol ., 2013, vol.108, pp.1706–1712.
      90. Wang YT, Tai LF, Yazaki E, et al. Investigation of dysphagia aft er antirefl ux surgery by high-resolution manometry: impact of multiple water swallows and a solid test meal on diagnosis, management, and clinical outcome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol., 2015, vol.13, pp.1575–83.
      91. Price LH, Li Y, Patel A, et al. Reproducibility patterns of multiple rapid swallows during high resolution esophageal manometry provide insights into esophageal pathophysiology. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2014, vol.26, pp.646–653.
      92. Ask P, Tibbling L. Eff ect of time interval between swallows on esophageal peristalsis. Am J Physiol., 1980, vol.238, pp.485–490.
      93. Behar J, Biancani P. Pathogenesis of simultaneous esophageal contractions in patients with motility disorders. Gastroenterology., 1993, vol.105, pp.111–118.
      94. Meyer GW, Gerhardt DC, Castell DO. Human esophageal response to rapid swallowing: muscle refractory period or neural inhibition? Am J Physiol., 1981, vol.241, pp.129–136.
      95. Carlson DA, Crowell MD, Kimmel JN, et al. Loss of Peristaltic reserve, determined by multiple rapid swallows, is the most frequent esophageal motility abnormality in patients with systemic sclerosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ., 2016, vol.14, pp.1502–1508.
      96. Daum C, Sweis R, Kaufman E, et al. Failure to respond to physiologic challenge characterizes esophageal motility in erosive gastro-esophageal refl ux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2011, vol.23, pp.517–200.
      97. Stoikes N, Drapekin J, Kushnir V, et al. Th e value of multiple rapid swallows during preoperative esophageal manometry before laparoscopic antirefl ux surgery. Surg Endosc., 2012, vol.26, pp.3401–3407.
      98. Mello MD, Shriver AR, Li Y, et al. Ineff ective esophageal motility phenotypes following fundoplication in gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2016, vol.28, pp.292–298.
      99. Jafari J, Yazaki E, Woodland P, et al. 370 Eff ect of azithromycin on Esophageal Hypomotility (EH) and Prediction of response by esophageal stimulations tests during high resolution manometry. Gastroenterology., 2015, vol.148, p.75.
      100. Marin I, Serra J. Patterns of esophageal pressure responses to a rapid drink challenge test in patients with esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2016, vol.28, pp.543–553.
      101. Ang D, Hollenstein M, Misselwitz B, et al. Rapid Drink Challenge in high-resolution manometry: an adjunctive test for detection of esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil., 2017, vol.29, p.12902.
      102. Elvevi A, Mauro A, Pugliese D, et al. Usefulness of low- and high-volume multiple rapid swallowing during high-resolution manometry. Dig Liver Dis., 2015, vol.47, pp.103–107.
      103. Morozov S. V., Isakov V. A., Tsodikova O. M., et al. Polymorphism of the CYP2C19 gene in patients with gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Clin. Pharmacol. Th er. 2004;1(13):49–52
      104. Morozov S. V., Tsodikova OM, Isakov V. A., et al. Esomeprasol and rabeprasol eff ects on esophageal acidifi cation in patients with gastroesophageal refl ux disease, intensively metabolizing inhibitors of proton pump. Terapevticheskiy arkhiv. 2005, no.2, pp.21–25.
     


    Full text is published :
    Kaibysheva V. O., Morozov S. V., Isakov V. A., Shapoval’yants S.G. The role of high resolution esophageal manometry in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal refl ux disease. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2018;158(10): 10–21. DOI: 10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-158-10-10-21
    Read & Download full text

    1. Public budgetary educational institution of higher education “First Saint-Petersburg State Medical University n. a. I. P. Pavlov” of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation (Saint Petersburg, Russia)

    Keywords: GERD, High resolution esophageal manometry, Barrett esophagus, esophagus, esophageal motility

    Abstract:The aim. To investigate esophageal motility in patients with GERD. Materials and methods. One hundred twenty-fi ve GERD patients were examined. Esophageal motility was studied with the use of high resolution water-perfused catheter (MMS; Solar GI, Netherlands). Results. Normal esophageal motility was found in 70 patients, in 47 patients ineff ective esophageal motility (IEM) was found. In 4 cases was revealed absent contractility, in 3 cases distal esophageal spasm (DES), and 1 patient suff ered from achalasia type III. Among total group 13 patients had histologically confi rmed Barrett esophagus, in 5 of them normal esophageal motility was found and 8 had signs of ineff ective motility. Mean EGJ-CI in patients with GERD was 7.17 mmHg x cm (n=125). Conclusion. Patients with GERD have diff erent patterns of esophageal motility. We should consider these diff erences to better understand the treatment options and prognosis of the disease.

      1. El-Serag H.B., Sweet S., Winchester C. C., Dent J. Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal refl ux disease: a systematic review // Gut. 2014. Vol. 63, № 6. P. 871–880.
      2. Lazebnik LB, Masharova AA, Bordin DS, et al. Multicentre study "Epidemiology of gastroesophageal refl ux disease in Russia" (MEGRE): fi rst results. Eksp Klin Gastroenterol. 2009;(6):4–12.
      3. Anvari M., Allen C., Marshall J. et al. A randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication versus proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of patients with chronic gastroesophageal refl ux disease (GERD): 3-year outcomes // Surg. Endosc. 2011. Vol. 25, № 8. P. 2547–2554.
      4. Zaninotto G., Parente P., Salvador R. et al. Long-Term Follow-up of Barrett’s Epithelium: Medical Versus Antirefl ux Surgical Th erapy // J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2012. Vol. 16, № 1. P. 7–15.
      5. Abdallah J., George N., Yamasaki T. et al. Most Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Who Failed Proton Pump Inhibitor Th erapy Also Have Functional Esophageal Disorders // Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018.
      6. Gyawali C.P., Kahrilas P. J., Savarino E. et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus // Gut. 2018. P. gutjnl-2017–314722.
      7. Kaibysheva VO, Bredenoord AJ, Bordin DS, et al. Th e technical aspects, interpretation of data, and clinical application of high-resolution esophageal manometry. Russian journal of Evidence-based gastroenterology = Dokazatel'naya gastroenterologiya. 2018;7(1):4–27. https://doi.org/10.17116/dokgastro2018714–26
      8. Kahrilas P.J., Bredenoord A. J., Fox M. et al. Th e Chicago Classifi cation of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0 // Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2015. Vol. 27, № 2. P. 160–174.
      9. Abdulkhakov SR, Bagnenko SF, Barkalova EV, et al. Resolution of the expert panel on the «First Russian high-resolution esophageal manometry Consensus». Russian journal of Evidence-based gastroenterology = Dokazatel'naya gastroenterologiya. 2018;7(1):50–54. https://doi. org/10.17116/dokgastro20187150–54
      10. Jain A., Baker J. R., Chen J. W. In ineff ective esophageal motility, failed swallows are more functionally relevant than weak swallows // Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2018. Vol. 30, № 6. P. e13297.
      11. Nicodème F., Pipa-Muniz M., Khanna K. et al. Quantifying esophagogastric junction contractility with a novel HRM topographic metric, the EGJ-Contractile Integral: normative values and preliminary evaluation in PPI non-responders. // Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2014. Vol. 26, № 3. P. 353–360.
      12. Wang D., Patel A., Mello M. et al. Esophagogastric junction contractile integral (EGJ-CI) quantifi es changes in EGJ barrier function with surgical intervention. // Neurogastroenterol. Motil. NIH Public Access, 2016. Vol. 28, № 5. P. 639–646.
      13. Sato K., Awad Z. T., Filipi C. J. et al. Causes of long-term dysphagia aft er laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. // JSLS J. Soc. Laparoendosc. Surg. Vol. 6, № 1. P. 35–40.
      14. Jain M. An Interesting Case of Post-fundoplication Dysphagia. // J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2014. Vol. 20, № 3. P. 410–411.
      15. Shaker A., Stoikes N., Drapekin J. et al. Multiple rapid swallow responses during esophageal high-resolution manometry refl ect esophageal body peristaltic reserve. // Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2013. Vol. 108, № 11. P. 1706–1712.
     


    Full text is published :
    Smirnov A. A., Kiriltseva M. M., Burakov A. N., Lubchenko M. E. et al. Spectrum of esophageal motility disorders in GERD revealed with the use of high resolution esophageal manometry. Single-center prospective trial. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2018;158(10): 22–26. DOI: 10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-158-10-22-26
    Read & Download full text

    1. Moscow Regional Scientifi c Research Clinical Institute n. a. M. F. Vladimirskiy (Moscow, Russia)
    2. Federal Research Centre of Nutrition and Biotechnology (Moscow, Russia)
    3. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (RNRMU) (117997, Moscow, Russia)

    Keywords: Parkinson’s disease, non-motor symptoms, gastrointestinal dysfunction, constipation, anorectal dysfunction, dietary correction

    Abstract:Aim: To investigate the prevalence of gastrointestinal manifestations at the early stages of Parkinson’s disease (PD), and to evaluate the eff ect of their dietary correction. Materials and methods: One hundred forty three patients with initial manifestations of PD stages 1–2 (according to the Hoehn and Yahr scale) were examined. The group of patients with initial manifestations of the disease received the dietary correction along with the dopaminergic therapy (dopaminergic agonists) for the identifi cation of the possibility of the dietary correction Results: Gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with initial manifestations of PD occurred were identifi ed in 85,1% cases of PD stage I and in 82,5% cases of PD stage II (according to the Hoehn and Yahr scale). The most frequent of them were constipation and feeling of incomplete emptying, which were present 16.4±3.9 years before the onset of motor symptoms of PD. Unlike the control group, the group of patients that received dopaminergic therapy (dopaminergic agonists) and dietary correction revealed the decrease of severity of gastrointestinal dysfunction, such as constipation and anorectal dysfunction. The eff ect remained during the observation period (24 months). Conclusions: administration of the pharmacotherapy (ropinirole) combined with dietary correction decreased the severity of gastrointestinal dysfunction in patients with initial manifestations of PD

      1. Kasten M., Chade A., Tanner C. M. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. In: Parkinson’s disease and related disorders. Advances in neurology, Vol.83, Part I (ed. W. C. Koller, E. Melamed). Edinburgh: Elsevier, 2007: p.129–151
      2. Levin O. S. Etiologiya i patogenez bolezni Parkinsona. Bolezn' Parkinsona. [Etiology and pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease]. Moscow, 2012, 352 p.
      3. Yu Q.J., Yu S. Y., Zuo L. J., Lian T. H. et al. Parkinson disease with constipation: clinical features and relevant factors. Scientifi c Reports, 2018 Jan 12; 8(1): 567
      4. Lin C.H., Lin J. W., Liu Y. C., Chang C. H. et al. Risk of Parkinson’s disease following severe constipation: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Parkinsonism & related disorders, 2014 Dec; vol. 20(12):1371–5
      5. Th eresa A., Zesiewicz M. D., Matthew J. et al. Autonomic nervous system dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease, Current treatment options in neurology, 2003, vol. 5, p.149–160
      6. Braak H., de Vos R. A., Bohl J., Del Tredici K. Gastric alpha-synuclein immunoreactive inclusions in Meissner’s and Aurbach’s plexuses in cases staged for Parkinson’s disease-related brain pathology, Neuroscience letters, 2006; vol. 396, p. 67–72.
      7. Braak H., Del Tredici K., Rüb U., de Vos R. A. et al. Staging of brain pathology related to sporadic Parkinson’s disease, Neurobiology of aging, 2003, vol. 24, n 2, p. 197–211
      8. Pfeiff er R. F. Gastrointestinal dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease, Th e Lancet Neurology 2003, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 107–116
      9. Cersosimo M.G., Benarroch E. E. Pathological correlates of gastrointestinal dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease, Neurobiology of Disease, 2012, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 559–564
      10. Holmqvist S., Chutna O., Bousset L., Aldrin-Kirk P. et al. Direct evidence of Parkinson pathology spread from the gastrointestinal tract to the brain in rats, 2014, Acta Neuropathologica, vol. 128, no. 6, pp. 805–820
      11. Yablonskaya A. Yu., Fedorova N. V., Loranskaya I. D. Th e impact of gastrointestinal disorders on the quality of life of patients with Parkinson's disease. Experimental and clinical gastroenterology. 2009, no. 4, pp. 72–76.
      12. Salat-Foix D., Andrews C. N., Meddings J., Suchowersky O., Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Parkinson Disease: Clinical Aspects and Management, 2011, Canadian journal of neurological sciences, vol.38, p.557–564
      13. Postuma R., Romenets S. R., Rakheja R. Canadian Guidelines on Parkinson’s Disease, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 2012, vol. 39, n. 4, p. 8–9
      14. Krogh, K., Ostergaard, K., Sabroe, S., Laurberg, S. Clinical aspects of bowel symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Acta neurologica Scandinavica, 2008, vol.117, p. 60–6
      15. Poirier A., Aubé B., Côté M., Morin N. et al. Gastrointestinal Dysfunctions in Parkinson’s Disease: Symptoms and Treatments, 2016, Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 2016, 23 page
      16. Levin O. S. Bolezn' Parkinsona [Parkinson's disease]. Moscow, 2012, 352 p.
      17. Byrne K. G. Gastrointestinal dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: a report of clinical experience at a single centre / K. G. Byrne // J. Clinical. Gastroenterol. – 1994. – Vol. 19. – P. 11–16.
      18. Bogdanov R. R., Manannikova E. I., Kotov S. V., Bogdanov A. R. Specifi c Features of Non-Motor Symptoms in Early Parkinson’s Disease. Doctor.Ru. 2013;5(83):24–28.
      19. Verbaan D., Marinus J., Visser M. J., et al. Patient-reported autonomic symptoms in Parkinson disease, Neurology, 2007, vol. 69, p. 333–341.
     


    Full text is published :
    Bogdanov R. R., Matyuk Y. V., Bogdanov A. R., Derbeneva S. A., Zaletova T. S. The spectrum of gastrointestinal motor dysfunction in patients with early stages of parkinson’s disease and effi ciency of their dietary correction. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2018;158(10): 27–33. DOI: 10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-158-10-27-33
    Read & Download full text

    1. Federal Research Center of Nutrition and Biotechnology (Moscow, Russia)

    Keywords: breath test with lactulose, SIBO of methanogenic fl ora, SIBO of hydrogen-producing fl ora, diet

    Abstract: The aim was to assess notable diet features of patients with diff erent types of SIBO in order to develop prevention of SIBO relapse. Materials and methods: There are analysis of three-day food diary, collected from 889 patients, undergoing CH4/H2 lactulose breath test. Results: It was found that patients with hyperproduction of CH4 demonstrated highest consumption of fruit (0,63 ± 0,7 compared with the normal levels of a healthy diet pyramid vs 0,37 ± 0,41 in Н2 group, 0,39 ± 0,45, in Н2+СН4 group) and protein dishes (1,61 ± 0,88 vs 1,25 ± 0,91 in Н2+СН4 group, 1,37±0,84 in Н2 group). Patients with isolated H2-hyperproduction consume more fat than other groups (1,20 ± 0,35 vs 1,14 ± 0,28 in group without gas overproduction, 1,15 ± 0,31 in Н2+СН4 group). SIBO patients diff er from group without gas overproduction lower red meat consumption (0,53 ± 0,66 in group without gas overproduction vs 0,31 ± 0,53 in Н2 group; vs 0,37 ± 0,50 in CН4 group) and patients with hyperproduction of CH4 demonstrated highest consumption of fi sh (0,49 ± 0,73 vs 0,21 ± 0,41 in Н2 group; vs 0,24 ± 0,77 in Н2+СН4 group), patients with isolated H2-hyperproduction to consume more poultry (0,57 ± 0,64 vs 0,37 ± 0,50 in CН4 group; vs 0,45±0,52 in Н2+СН4 group; vs 0,37±0,45 in group without gas overproduction). SIBO patients consumed less fi ber than patients with no signs of SIBO (21,4 g/d ± 10,0 vs 19,0±9,5 in Н2 SIBO group and 19,1±8,9 in Н2+СН4 group). Conclusion: there are specifi c consumption patterns related to the type of the SIBO, which can be used for the planning of dietetic interventions in patients for prevention of SIBO recurrence.

      1. Hawrelak J. A., Myers S. P. Th e Causes of Intestinal Dysbiosis: A Review // Altern Med Rev.-2004.-9(2).-180–197.
      2. Dominguez-Bello M. G., Blaster M. J. Do you have a probiotic in your future? // Microbes and Infection. – 2008. – 10. – 1072–1076.
      3. Macfarlane S, Macfarlane GT. Proteolysis and amino acid fermentation. In: Gibson GR, Macfarlane GT, eds. Human Colonic Bacteria: Role in Nutrition, Physiology, and Pathology. – Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1995.-75–100
      4. Yao C. K., Muir J. G., Gibson P. R. Review article: insights into colonic protein fermentation, its modulation and potential health implications // Aliment Pharmacol Th er. – 2016.-43(2). – 1–16
      5. Ponziani F. R., Gerardi V., Gasbarrini A. Diagnosis and treatment of small intestinal overgrowth // Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology. – 2016. – 10(2).-215–227.
      6. Rutherford S. T. and Bassler B. L. Bacterial Quorum Sensing: Its Role in Virulence and Possibilities for Its Control // Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med.-2012. – 2(11). – a012427
      7. Li Z., Nair S. K. Quorum sensing: How bacteria can coordinate activity and synchronize their response to external signals? // Protein Science. – 2012. – 21. – 1403–1417
      8. Spiegel B. M. R. Questioning the Bacterial Overgrowth Hypothesis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: An Epidemiologic and Evolutionary Perspective // Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. – 2011.-9. – 461–469.
      9. Gabrielli M., D’angelo G., Di Rienzo T. et al. Diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in the clinical practice // European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences. – 2013.-17(Suppl 2). – 30–35.
      10. Giamarellos-Bourboulis E. J., Tzivras M. Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: Novel Insight in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome // Annals Of Gastroenterology. – 2009. – 22 (2). – 77–81.
      11. Milani C., Ferrario C., Turroni et al. Тhe human gut microbiota and its interactive connections to diet. // J Hum Nutr Diet. – 2016. – 29. – 539–546.
      12. Wang J., Linnenbrink M., Künzel S. et al. Dietary history contributes to enterotype-like clustering and functional metagenomic content in the intestinal microbiome of wild mice. // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. – 2014. – 111 (26). – E2703-E2710.
      13. Wu G. D., Chen J., Hoff mann C. et al. Linking Long-Term Dietary Patterns with Gut Microbial Enterotypes // Science. – 2011. – 334. – 105–108.
      14. Spiegel BMRN, Mayer E, Bolus R, et al. Development and initial validation of a concise point-of-care IBS severity index: the 4-item “BEST” questionnaire. // Gastroenterology. – 2006.-130.-S1040.
      15. Preparation and use of food-based dietary guidelines // Joint FAO/WHO Consultation (WHO Technical Report Series 880). – 1998. – 108р
      16. Pilipenko V. I., Isakov V. A., Zeigarnik M. V. A method of dietary assessment by comparison of eating patterns. Vopr. dietol. (Nutrition). 2016; 6(3): 72–76. DOI: 10.20593/2224–5448–2016–3–72–76
      17. Potrebleniye produktov pitaniya v domashnikh khozyaystvakh v 2011 godu (po itogam vyborochnogo obsledovaniya byudzhetov domashnikh khozyaystv) [Household food consumption in 2011 (based on a sample household budget survey)]. Moscow, 2012.
      18. Helman M. L., Greenway F. L. A healthy gastrointestinal microbiome is dependent on dietary diversity // Molecular metabolism. – 2016. – Vol 5. – 317–320.
      19. Jeff ery I. B., O’Toole P. W. Diet-microbiota interactions and their implications for healthy living // Nutrients. – 2013. – Vol 5. – 234–252.
      20. Jang H. B., Choi M. K., Kang J. H. et al. Association of dietary patterns with the fecal microbiota in Korean adolescents. // BMC Nutrition. – 2017. – 3.-20.
      21. Shefl in A. M., Melby C. L., Carbonero F. et al. Linking dietary patterns with gut microbial composition and function. // Gut Microbes. – 2017.-8(2).-113–129.
      22. Porter N. T., Martens E. C. Th e critical roles of polysaccharides in gut microbial ecology and physiology // Annu. Rev. Microbiol. – 2017. – Vol 71. – 349–369.
      23. Flint H. J., Duncan S. H., Louis P. Th e impact of nutrition on intestinal bacterial communities // Current opinion in Microbiology. – 2017. – 38. – 59–65.
      24. Pallister T., Spector T. D. Food a new form of personalized (gut microbiome) medicine for chronic diseases? //(9). – 331–336.
      25. Weiss G. A., Hennet T. Mechanisms and consequencts of intestinal dysbiosis. // Cell. Mol. Life Sci. – 2017. – 74(16).2959–2977.
      26. Singh R. K., Chang H. W., Yan D. et al. Infl uence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health // J Transl Med. – 2017. – 15(1).-73.
      27. Martinez K. B., Pierre J. F., Chang E. B. Th e gut microbiota Th e gateway to improved metabolism. // Gastroenterol Clin N Am. – 2016. – 45. – 601–614.
      28. Myles I. A. Fast food fever: reviewing the impacts of the Western diet on immunity // Nutrition Journal. – 2014. – 13.-61.
      29. Ohlad C. L., Jobin C. Microbial activities and intestinal homeostasis: a delicate balance between health and disease // Cell MolGastroenterolHepatol. – 2015.-1. – 28–40.
      30. Cani P. D., Everard A. Talking microbes: When gut bacteria interact with diet and host organs // Mol. Nutr. Food Res. – 2016. – 60. – 58–66.
      31. Brown K., DeCoff e D., Molcan E., Gibson D. L. Diet-Induced Dysbiosis of the Intestinal Microbiota and the Eff ects on Immunity and Disease // Nutrients. – 2012. – 4. – 1095–1119.
      32. Pokusaeva K, Fitzgerald GF & van Sinderen D. Carbohydrate metabolism in Bifi dobacteria. // Genes Nutr. – 2011. – 6. – 285–306.
      33. Rosa D., Dias M. M. S., et al. Milk kefi r: nutritional, microbiological and health benefi ts // Nutrition Research Review. – 2017. – 30(1). – 82–96.
      34. Gomg L., Cao W., Chi H. et al. Whole cereal grains and potential health eff ects: involvement of the gut microbiota. // Food research international. – 2018. – 103. – 84–102.
      35. Lekshmi M., Ammini P., Kumar S. et al. Th e food production environment and the development of antimicrobial resisance in human pathogens of animal origin. // Microorganisms. – 2017. – 5. – 11 doi: 10/3390/microorganisms5010011
      36. Hoff man V. R. Ekologicheskiye i sotsial'nyye aspekty bezopasnosti prodovol'stvennogo syr'ya i produktov pitaniya: Uchebnoye posobiye [Environmental and social aspects of the safety of food raw materials and food: a training manual]. Chelyabinsk, SUSU Publ., 2004. 551 p.
      37. Kadokar S., Mutlu E. A. Diet as a therapeutic option for adult infl ammatory bowel disease. // Gasroenterol Clin N Am. – 2017. – 46. – p. 745–767.
     


    Full text is published :
    Pilipenko V. I., Balmashnova A. V. Comparison of food rations in diff erent types of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth syndrome. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2018;158(10): 34–42. DOI: 10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-158-10-34-42
    Read & Download full text

    1. Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation (Sechenovskiy University) (Moscow, Russia)

    Keywords: gastroesophageal refl ux disease, nonerosive refl ux disease, irritable bowel syndrome, 24-h pH-impedance measurement

    Abstract: Aim of investigation. To study the features of gastroesophageal refl ux disease (GERD) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in the light of the Rome IV criteria. Materials and methods. 102 IBS patients (55 females, mean age 40,8, diagnosis of IBS was established according to Rome III criteria) with esophageal symptoms were examined in gastroenterology department. Esophageal symptoms were presented with heartburn, belching, globus sensation and noncardiac chest pain. All patients underwent endoscopy, with biopsies if required, X-ray examination of upper gastrointestinal tract; 24-hour multichannel pH-impedance monitoring;13C-urea breath test. Evaluation of esophageal symptoms was carried out on the basis of Rome IV criteria. Results. 21 (20,6%) individuals had esophagitis (ERD). According to 24-hour pH-monitoring data, 7 of them had normal acid exposure time (AET) off proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy. Using symptom association probability (SAP) for heartburn, overlap between GERD and refl ux hypersensitivity (RH) was revealed in 3 patients with SAP+, and overlap between GERD and functional heartburn (FH) was revealed in 4 patients with SAP-. 27 (26,5%) individuals had nonerosive refl ux disease (NERD) (19 with abnormal AET and 8 with normal AET, but SAP+ for globus and chest pain). Esophageal symptoms such as globus sensation and chest pain were only manifestation of NERD in 33,3% IBS patients. Conclusion. The course of GERD in IBS patients diff ers in a number of features. According to 24-h pH-impedance measurement data, some patients have the overlap between erosive refl ux disease and functional esophageal disorders such as functional heartburn and refl ux hypersensitivity. Esophageal symptoms such as globus sensation and chest pain can be only manifestation of NERD in IBS patients.

      1. Jung HK, Halder S, McNally M, et al. Overlap of gastrooesophageal refl ux disease and irritable bowel syndrome: Prevalence and risk factors in the general population // Aliment Pharmacol Th er. – 2007. – № 26. – P. 453–461.
      2. Cheung TK, Lam KF, Hu WH, et al. Positive association between gastrooesophageal refl ux disease and irritable bowel syndrome in a Chinese population // Aliment Pharmacol Th
      3. Jones R, Lydeard S. Irritable bowel syndrome in the general population // BMJ. – 1992. – № 304. – P. 87–90.
      4. Talley NJ, Dennis EH, Schettler-Duncan VA, et al. Overlapping upper and lower gastrointestinal symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome patients with constipation or diarrhea // Am J Gastroenterol. – 2003. – № 98. – P. 2454–2459.
      5. Hungin AP, Whorwell PJ, Tack J, Mearin F. Th e prevalence, patterns and impact of irritable bowel syndrome: An international survey of 40,000 subjects // Aliment Pharmacol Th er.
      6. Pimentel M, Rossi F, Chow EJ, et al. Increased prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in patients with gastroesophageal refl ux // J Clin Gastroenterol. – 2002. – № 34. – P. 221–224
      7. Guillemot F, Ducrotte P, Bueno L. Prevalence of functional gastrointestinal disorders in a population of subjects consulting for gastroesophageal refl ux disease in general practice // Gastroenterol Clin Biol. – 2005. – № 29. – P. 243–246.
      8. Gasiorowska A, Poh CH, Fass R. Gastroesophageal refl ux disease (GERD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) – is it one disease or an overlap of two disorders? // Dig Dis Sci. – 2009. – № 54. – P. 1829–1834.
      9. Kaji M, Fujiwara Y, Shiba M, et al. Prevalence of overlaps between GERD, FD and IBS and impact on health-related quality of life // J Gastroenterol Hepatol. – 2010. – № 25. – P. 1151–1156.
      10. Choung RS, Locke GR3rd, Schleck CD, et al. Overlap of dyspepsia and gastroesophageal refl ux in the general population: One disease or distinct entities? // Neurogastroenterol Motil. – 2012. – № 24. – P. 229–234.
      11. Lee KJ, Kwon HC, Cheong JY, Cho SW. Demographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics of the heartburn groups classifi ed using the Rome III criteria and factors associated with the responsiveness to proton pump inhibitors in the gastroesophageal refl ux disease group // Digestion. – 2009. – № 79. – P. 131–136.
      12. de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, Savarino EV, et al. Functional heartburn overlaps with irritable bowel syndrome more oft en than GERD // Am J Gastroenterol. – 2016. – № 111. – P. 1711–1717.
      13. Frazzoni L, Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, et al. Critical appraisal of Rome IV criteria: hypersensitive esophagus does belong to gastroesophageal refl ux disease spectrum // Ann Gastroenterol. – 2018. – Vol. 31. – N. 1. – P. 1–7.
      14. Frazzoni L, Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, et al. Postrefl ux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance can link PPI-responsive heartburn to refl ux better than acid exposure time // Neurogastroenterol Motil. – 2017. – № 29. – e13116.
      15. Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, et al. Impedance-pH monitoring for diagnosis of refl ux disease: new perspectives // Dig Dis Sci. – 2017. – № 62. –P. 1881–1889.
      16. Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus // Gut. – 2018. – Published Online First: 03 February 2018.
      17. Savarino E, Zentilin P, Marabotto E, et al. Drugs for improving esophageal mucosa defense: where are we now and where are we going? // Annals of Gastroenterology. – 2017. – Vol. 30. – N. 6. – P. 585–591.
      18. de Bortoli N, Martinucci I, Savarino E, et al. Association between baseline impedance values and response proton pump inhibitors in patients with heartburn // Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. – 2015. – № 13. – P. 1082–1088.
      19. Frazzoni M, Manta R, Mirante VG, et al. Esophageal chemical clearance is impaired in gastro-esophageal refl ux disease – a 24-h impedance-pH monitoring assessment // Neurogastroenterol Motil. – 2013. – № 25. – P. 399–406.
      20. Patel A, Wang D, Sainani N, et al. Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance on pH-impedance monitoring predicts refl ux burden and symptomatic outcome in gastro-oesophageal refl ux disease // Aliment Pharmacol Th er. – 2016. – № 44. – P. 890–898.
      21. Martinucci I, de Bortoli N, Savarino E, et al. Esophageal baseline impedance levels in patients with pathophysiological characteristics of functional heartburn // Neurogastroenterol Motil. – 2014. – № 26. – P. 546–555.
      22. Frazzoni M, Savarino E, de Bortoli N, et al. Analyses of the post-refl ux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance parameters increase the diagnostic yield of impedance-pH monitoring of patients with refl ux disease // Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. – 2016. – № 14. – P. 40–46.
      23. Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, et al. Impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity distinguishes hypersensitive esophagus from functional heartburn // J Gastroenterol. – 2017. – № 52. – P. 444–451.
      24. Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, et al. Th e added diagnostic value of postrefl ux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance in refractory refl ux disease studied with on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring // Neurogastroenterol Motil. – 2017. – № 29. – e12947.
     


    Full text is published :
    Morozova Yu.N., Pogromov A. P., Mnatsakanyan M. G., Tashchyan O. V. Specifi city of gastroesophageal refl ux disease in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2018;158(10): 43–47. DOI: 10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-158-10-43-47
    Read & Download full text

    1. Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation (Sechenovskiy University) (Moscow, Russia)

    Keywords: nonerosive refl ux disease, irritable bowel syndrome, 24-h pH-impedance measurement

    Abstract: Цель исследования. Изучить спектр функциональных расстройств пищевода (ФРП) у больных с синдромом раздраженного кишечника (СРК) в специализированном гастроэнтерологическом стационаре. Материалы и методы. Обследовано 102 больных (55 женщин, средний возраст 40,8±12,2 лет) с верифицированным диагнозом СРК (по Римским критериям III, 2006 г) и симптомами расстройства пищевода в виде изжоги, иногда в сочетании с отрыжкой, ощущения кома в горле и некардиогенной боли в грудной клетке. Всем больным выполнялось рентгенологическое и эндоскопическое (при наличии показаний — с биопсией) исследования, суточная комбинированная рН-импедансометрия,13С уреазный дыхательный тест для определения H. pylori. Оценка пищеводных расстройств проводилась в соответствии с Римскими критериями IV (2016 г). Результаты. В ходе комплексного обследования у 48 (47,1%) больных с СРК диагностирована гастроэзофагеальная рефлюксная болезнь (ГЭРБ). У остальных 54 (52,9%) больных с СРК по данным комплексного обследования патологии пищевода выявлено не было, что позволило констатировать у них ФРП. При расчете индекса возможной ассоциации симптомов и рефлюксов у 14 он оказался положительным и у 40 — отрицательным. У 14 больных с изжогой и положительным индексом возможной ассоциации симптомов и рефлюксов диагностирована гиперчувствительность к рефлюксам. У 40 больных с отрицательным индексом возможной ассоциации симптомов и рефлюксов конкретная форма ФРП определялась доминирующим пищеводным симптомом. У 30 (29,4%) больных с изжогой диагностирована функциональная изжога, у 9 (8,8%) с ощущением кома в горле — ком и у 1 (0,98%) с болью в грудной клетке — функциональная грудная боль. Заключение. У больных с СРК ФРП представлены: в 29,4% случаев функциональной изжогой, в 13,7% — гиперчувствительностью к рефлюксам, в 8,8% — комом в горле и в 0,98% — функциональной грудной болью. Диагностика ФРП базируется, в основном, на данных комбинированной рН-импедансометрии. При этом большое значение в дифференциальной диагностике разных форм ФРП имеет индекс возможной ассоциации симптомов и рефлюксов.

      1. Rome IV. Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: in 2 vol. / Drossman D. A. et al. – Rome Foundation, 2016.
      2. Galmiche JP, Clouse RE, Balint A, et al. Functional esophageal disorders // Gastroenterology. – 2006. – N130. – P. 1459–1465.
      3. Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Kahrilas PJ, et al. Chicago Classifi cation criteria of esophageal motility disorders defi ned in high resolution esophageal pressure topography // Neurogastroenterol Motil. – 2012. – N24. – Suppl 1. – P. 57–65.
      4. Buyeverov A. O., Bogomolov P. O. Old and new pathogenic concepts of irritable bowel syndrome: instead of or together? Clinical prospects of gastroenterology, hepatology. 2015, no.2, 27–35.
      5. Costantini M, Sturniolo GC, Zaninotto G, et al. Altered esophageal pain threshold in irritable bowel syndrome // Dig Dis Sci. – 1993. – N38. – P. 206–212.
      6. Trimble KC, Farouk R, Pryde A, et al. Heightened visceral sensation in functional gastrointestinal disease is not site-specifi c. Evidence for a generalized disorder of gut sensitivity // Dig Dis Sci. – 1995. – N40. – P. 1607–1613.
      7. Pehlivanov N, Liu J, Mittal RK. Sustained esophageal contraction: a motor correlate of heartburn symptom // Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. – 2001. – N281. – P. G743-G751.
      8. Zentilin P, Marabotto E, Pellegatta G, et al. Complexity and diversity of gastroesophageal refl ux disease phenotypes // Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. – 2017. – Vol. 63, N3. – P. 198–204.
      9. de Bortoli N, Martinucci I, Bellini M, et al. Overlap of functional heartburn and gastroesophageal refl ux disease with irritable bowel syndrome // World J Gastroenterol. – 2013. – Vol. 19, N35. – P. 5787–5797.
      10. de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, Savarino EV, et al. Functional heartburn overlaps with irritable bowel syndrome more oft en than GERD // Am J Gastroenterol. – 2016. – N111. – P. 1711–1717.
      11. Mudipalli RS, Remes-Troche JM, Andersen L, Rao SS. Functional chest pain: esophageal or overlapping functional disorder // J Clin Gastroenterol. – 2007. – Vol. 41, N3. – P. 264–269.
      12. de Bortoli N, Natali V, Melissari S, et al. Overlap of GERD and gastrointestinal functional disorders // Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. – 2017. – Vol. 63, N3. – P. 205–220.
      13. Aziz Q, Fass R, Gyawali CP, et al. Functional esophageal disorders // Gastroenterology. – 2016. – N150. – P. 1368–1379
      14. Lee KJ, Kwon HC, Cheong JY, Cho SW. Demographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics of the heartburn groups classifi ed using the Rome III criteria and factors associated with the responsiveness to proton pump inhibitors in the gastroesophageal refl ux disease group // Digestion. – 2009. – N79. – P. 131–136.
      15. Yao X, Yang YS, Cui LH, et al. Th e overlap of upper functional gastrointestinal disorders with irritable bowel syndrome in Chinese outpatients: A multicenter study // J Gastroenterol Hepatol. – 2016. – Vol. 31, N9. – P. 1584–1593.
     


    Full text is published :
    Morozova Yu.N., Pogromov A. P., Mnatsakanyan M. G., Tashchyan O. V. Functional esophageal disorders in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2018;158(10): 48–51. DOI: 10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-158-10-48-51
    Read & Download full text