4.6 Article

The Prevalence of Rome IV Nonerosive Esophageal Phenotypes in Children

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 189, 期 -, 页码 86-91

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.06.019

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01 DK097112]
  2. NIH [5T32DK007477- 33]
  3. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To assess the prevalence of Rome IV nonerosive esophageal phenotypes in children using multichannel intraluminal impedance testing and to describe the rates of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) responsiveness and the frequency of microscopic esophagitis in these patients. Study design We conducted a retrospective review of all children >= 5 years of age who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and multichannel intraluminal impedance testing off PPI therapy for evaluation of typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Only children with symptoms during the multichannel intraluminal impedance testing were included. Children were categorized into the following nonerosive esophageal phenotypes using Rome IV criteria: nonerosive reflux disease, reflux hypersensitivity, and functional heartburn. Rates of esophagitis and responsiveness to acid suppression therapy were assessed. Results Forty-five children were included: 27% were categorized as having nonerosive reflux disease, 29% with reflux hypersensitivity (27% acid and 2% nonacid), and 44% with functional heartburn. Older children reported significantly more heartburn (P < .001) than younger children, whereas younger children were more likely to report nonspecific pain (P = .047). There were no differences between groups in other reflux symptoms, rates of responsiveness to PPIs, or the presence of microscopic esophagitis on biopsy. Conclusions Functional heartburn is the most common Rome IV nonerosive esophageal phenotype in children. Neither microscopic esophagitis nor PPI responsiveness can predict phenotype in pediatric patients.

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