4.7 Article

Dilated intercellular spaces of esophageal epithelium in nonerosive reflux disease patients with physiological esophageal acid exposure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 543-548

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40978.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: It has been demonstrated that dilation of intercellular spaces of esophageal epithelium is a marker of tissue injury in GERD patients with a pathological esophageal acid exposure time. To evaluate the relationship among ultrastructural changes, acid esophageal exposure, and GERD symptoms, intercellular space diameters have been assessed in nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) patients with/without abnormal acid exposure time. METHODS: Following a pharmacological wash-out, 20 NERD patients underwent upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-h pH monitoring. Biopsies were taken at 5 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter and intercellular space diameters were measured on transmission electron microscopy photomicrographs. Seven asymptomatic controls underwent the same protocol. RESULTS: Acid exposure time was in the normal range in all controls and in 11 patients (NERD pH-negative); it was abnormal in 9 patients (NERD pH-positive). Mean intercellular space diameter in NERD pH-negative and in NERD pH-positive patients was three times greater than in controls (1.45 and 1.49 mu m vs 0.45, p < 0.001). Mean values of maximum intercellular spaces in all NERD patients were greater, two-fold or more, than those in controls (p < 0.001). No difference in mean and maximal space diameters was observed between NERD pH-positive and pH-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dilation of intercellular spaces is a feature of NERD patients, irrespective of esophageal acid exposure, and can be considered an objective, structural marker of GERD symptoms. Impaired esophageal mucosal resistance, even to small amounts of acid refluxate, plays a key role in the pathophysiology of NERD.

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

4.7
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