4.7 Article

Helicobacter pylori Eradication Improves Pre-Existing Reflux Esophagitis in Patients With Duodenal Ulcer Disease

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 2, 期 6, 页码 474-479

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1542-3565(04)00165-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: There has been significant controversy over the relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and reflux esophagitis. We investigated the effects of eradicating H. pylori on the reflux esophagitis found in patients with peptic ulcers. Methods: Prospective posteradication evaluations were conducted yearly in 162 H. pylori-positive patients who had reflux esophagitis together with peptic ulcer disease (4 women and 158 men, mean age = 49.1 yr). The Los Angeles classification of the patients' esophagitis was: grade A, 90; grade B, 63; and grade C, 9. The follow-up evaluations began 1 to 2 months after completion of the eradication treatment (mean time of follow-up = 22 mo), and consisted of endoscopy and an interview focusing on heartburn. Results: Six patients were withdrawn from the study because of adverse drug reactions or a failure to regularly keep their appointments. After eradication therapy, we observed endoscopically that reflux esophagitis had improved in 87 (55.8%) of the 156 patients. The improvement rate was significantly higher in patients cured of infection (60.8%) than in those with persistent H. pylori infection (38.9%) (P = 0.04). Body mass index (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76-0.97), cure of infection (3.68, 95% CI = 1.56-8.69), the absence of a hiatal hernia (3.90, 95% CI = 1.83-8.28), and an ulcer located in the duodenum (2.75, 95% CI = 1.33-5.70) were identified as significant independent factors for the improvement of reflux esophagitis. Conclusions: In patients with reflux esophagitis associated with duodenal ulcer, a significant improvement in pre-existing reflux esophagitis was noted after H. pylori eradication.

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