ABSTRACT
Objective:To analyze the reflux parameters of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in upright position, supine position and at 2 h after meals, and to explore the cut-off value, sensitivity and specificity of the reflux parameters in different positions and at 2 h after meals in GERD diagnosis.Methods:From January 2016 to July 2020, 200 GERD patients (GERD group) and 61 non-GERD patients (control group) who visited Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital (Former Nanshan District People′s Hospital), were selected. All the patients of the two groups received gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GERDQ), upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, esophageal high resolution manometry and 24 h esophageal pH combined impedance monitoring. T test, non-parametric test and chi-square test were used to compare the related parameters in upright position, supine position and at 2 h after meals between two groups and within each group. Receiver oparative characteristic (ROC) curves of reflux parameters in upright position, supine position and 2 h after meals were drawn to determine the cut-off value, sensitivity and specificity in GERD diagnosis. Results:The proportion of patients with acid reflux in supine position of the control group was higher than that of the GERD group (41.0%, 25/61 vs. 8.50%, 17/200), and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=36.53, P<0.01). In the control group, the acid reflux time in upright position, number of acid reflux, acid exposure time (AET), longest reflux time and number of weak acid reflux were more than those of in supine position in the same group (6.00 min(2.00 min, 13.50 min) vs. 0.00 min(0.00 min, 1.50 min), 16.00(8.00, 27.00) vs. 1.00(0.00, 3.00), 0.90%(0.33%, 1.88%) vs. 0.00%(0.00%, 0.30%), 2.00 min(1.00 min, 4.00 min) vs. 0.00 min(0.00 min, 1.00 min), 7.00(3.00, 11.00) vs. 1.00(0.00, 2.00), respectively) and the differences were statistically significant ( Z=5.43, 6.61, 5.06, 3.58 and 6.24, all P<0.01). In the GERD group, the acid reflux time, number of acid reflux, AET, longest reflux time and number of weak acid reflux in upright position were higher than those in supine position (51.00 min, (31.00 min, 86.75 min) vs. 8.00 min(1.00 min, 42.00 min), 60.00(48.00, 83.75) vs.6.00(2.00, 19.50), 7.30%(3.90%, 12.10%) vs. 1.50%(0.20%, 6.50%), 7.00 min(4.00, 12.00 min) vs. 4.00 min(1.00 min, 17.00 min), 1.00(0.00, 3.00) vs. 0.00(0.00, 2.00), 7.00(3.00, 12.00) vs. 0.00(0.00, 1.00), respectively) and the differences were statistically significant ( Z=7.92, 11.22, 6.90, 2.56, 5.11 and 11.76, all P<0.05). The acid reflux time, number of acid reflux, AET, longest reflux time and number of weak acid reflux at 2 h postprandial were 3.00 min(2.00 min, 9.00 min), 10.00(5.00, 18.00), 0.90%(0.40%, 1.98%), 1.00 min(0.00 min, 3.00 min), 4.00(1.50, 8.50)and 28.50 min(15.00 min, 54.75 min), 35.00(24.00, 52.00), 8.30%(4.32%, 15.83%), 6.00 min(3.00 min, 11.00 min), 4.00(2.00, 7.25), in the control and GERD groups, respectively, which were significantly higher than those in supine position in the same group ( Z=4.30, 6.33, 5.50, 3.40, 5.71 and 3.76, 9.21, 5.76, 1.97, 10.46, all P<0.05). Among 200 GERD patients, 125 patients had symptoms recorded during the 24 h esophageal pH combined impedance monitoring, the incidence of reflux symptoms in upright position was higher than that in supine position (89.6%, 112/125 vs. 65.6%, 82/125), and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=20.71, P<0.01). The results of ROC curve analysis showed that the accuracy of acid reflux time in upright position in GERD prediction was the highest, with AUC value of 0.94 and cut-off value of 24.5 min, and the sensitivity and specificity in GERD diagnosis were 81.50% and 95.08%, respectively. The prediction accuracy of acid reflux times in upright position and AET in upright position for GERD was secondary, AUC value both were 0.93 and the cut-off value of the acid reflux number in upright position was 39.5, and the sensitivity and specificity in GERD diagnosis were 84.00% and 95.08%, respectively. The cut-off value of AET in upright position was 2.75%, the sensitivity and specificity in GERD diagnosis were 85.00% and 93.33%, respectively. The AUC value, cut-off value, sensitivity and specificity of AET at 2 h postprandial were 0.91, 4.60%, and 73.49% and 95.00%, respectively. Conclusions:Both GERD patients and non-GERD patients have more reflux in upright position, especially within 2 h after meals. The diagnostic values of acid reflux time in upright position, number of acid reflux, AET and AET 2 h after meals for GERD is high, and the AUC values are all >0.90, which can be used as a more comprehensive basis for the analysis and diagnosis of GERD.
ABSTRACT
Objective To analyze the endoscopic features of patients with the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and crural diaphragm (CD) separation and explore its significance in hiatus hernia (HH) diagnosis.Methods From January 2011 to June 2012,the data of patients underwent esophagus high resolution manometry (HRM) examination were retrospectively analyzed and of which the patients with LES-CD separation were selected.Patients who received digestive tracts operation or lack of complete endoscopic date were excluded.A total of 93 cases were enrolled for analysis.According to Chicago Criteria,the cases were divided into three groups.There were 21 cases in type Ⅰ group (LES-CD separation＜1 cm),37 cases in type Ⅱ group (LES-CD separation≥l cm and ＜2 cm),35 cases in type Ⅲ group (LES-CD separation≥2 cm).The differences among groups in endoscopic features were analyzed.HRM were taken as golden standard,the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy in HH diagnosis were analyzed.Measurement data were expressed as x ± s,one-way ANOVA was performed for multi-groups comparisons,LSD method or Dunnett T3 test for pairwise comparisons and chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for two groups' comparisons.Results There were no significant differences in the distance between esophagus gastric junction (EGJ) and foreteeth of the three groups (P＞0.05).Distances between EGJ and diaphragmatic HH pressure impression in type Ⅲ group,type Ⅱ group and type Ⅰ group were (3.57±0.78) cm,(1.89±0.81) cm and (1.14±0.67) cm,respectively and the differences were significant (LSDt=9.26,11.44,3.57; all P＜0.05).The percentage of continuously-open cardia and showing pressure impression of the gastric pouch of type Ⅲ group was higher than that of type Ⅱ group and the percentage of continuously-open cardia and showing pressure impression of gastric poach of type Ⅱ group was higher than that of type Ⅰ group (80.0％,40.5％ and 4.8％,x2 =11.64,29.76 and 8.59; 91.4％,27.0％ and 4.8％,x2 =30.69,40.73 and 4.32' all P＜0.05).The occurrence rates of the His angle blunting and sac of type Ⅲ group were higher than those of typeⅡ group and type Ⅰ group (74.3％ and 77.1％,24.3％ and 24.3％,4.8％ and 4.8％,x2 =17.97 and 25.41,both P＜0.05),there was no significant difference between type Ⅱ group and type Ⅰ group (P＞0.05).The rates of esophagitis of type Ⅲ group and type Ⅱ group were higher than that of type Ⅰ group (71.4％,59.5％ and 14.3％,x2 =17.14 and 11.15,both P＜0.05),there was no significant difference between type Ⅲ group and type Ⅱ group (P＞0.05).There was one case of Barrett's esophagus in each group.The sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy in HH diagnosis were 91.4％ and 81.0％,respectively.Conclusions The distance between EGJ and hiatal pressure impression,continuously-open cardia,the His angle blunting,hiatal pressure impression of the gastric pouch and hernia sac were important indicators of HH endoscopic features.The sensitivity of endosocopy is higher than the spcificity of endosocopy in HH diagnosis.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To construct and characterize GFP-mfgl 2 fusion protein expression plasmid (pEGFP-mfgl 2) and provide a direct and simplified methodology for primary assessment of the effect of mfgl 2 siRNA on the mfgl 2 gene expression. Methods: mfgl 2 cDNA was amplified from the mfgl 2 cDNA library pBluescript-m166 (pm166) of mouse genomic P1 plasmid and recloned into pEGFP-N2 upstream of GFP gene. The pEGFP-mfgl 2 was analyzed by restriction endonucleases BamH I and Hind III to ensure the orientation and the sequence. This fusion plasmid was then transfected into CHO cells and the fusion protein expression was observed by fluorescent microscope. Rusults: A 1.3 kb long cDNA was obtained. Restriction endonucleases and sequencing assays showed the correct orientation and sequence. After 24-48 hours transfection in CHO cells, the expression of pEGFP-mfgl 2 can be visualized through fluorescent microscope. Conclusion: pEGFP mfgl 2 has been constructed successfully. The recombinant vector can express GFP-mfgl 2 fusion protein. It provides a direct and simplified methodology for primary assessment of the effect of mfgl 2 siRNA on the mfgl 2 gene expression.