4.6 Article

Risk factors for Barrett's esophagus in Indian patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1151-1156

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06714.x

关键词

Asia; Barrett's esophagus; belching; eructation; gastroesophageal reflux disease; risk factor; specialized intestinal metaplasia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is reported to be infrequent in Asians, with no data from India regarding its prevalence and risk factors. We investigated the frequency and risk factors of columnar mucosa with or without specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) in Indian patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods: A total of 278 GERD patients over 2 years underwent gastroscopy and completed a questionnaire for possible BE risk factors. Patients with columnar mucosa on endoscopy underwent four-quadrant biopsy; BE was histologically defined as columnar mucosa with or without SIM. Patients without columnar mucosa at endoscopy were considered as controls and compared to patients with BE and those with SIM. Results: Forty-six patients with GERD had columnar mucosa on histology (16.54%); 25 (8.99%) of these had SIM. The risk factors for BE were the presence of hiatus hernia (odds ratio [OR]: 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-8.17) and a history of eructation (OR: 2.28; Cl: 1.11-4.66). The risk factors for SIM were age >= 45 years (OR: 2.63; Cl: 1.03-6.71), hiatus hernia (OR: 3.95; Cl: 1.24-12.56), and a history of eructation (OR: 3.41; CI: 1.19-9.78). Sex, severity of symptoms, dietary factors, tobacco or alcohol use, and body mass index were not associated with BE. The median circumferential segment length was 2 (1-10) cm, and the maximal length was 3 (2-11) cm in both groups. Conclusion: BE is not an uncommon finding among Indian GERD patients. Age >= 45 years, history of eructation, and the presence of hiatus hernia are associated with SIM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据