The Prevalence of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Azerbaijan: A Population-Based Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Azerbaijan has not been evaluated before. The aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease based on the validated reflux questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1026 individuals from 7 regions of Azerbaijan were included in the cross-sectional study conducted via face-to-face administration of the validated Mayo Clinic's gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was diagnosed if an individual had heartburn and/or regurgitation occurring at least once a week. RESULTS: The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Azerbaijan was 22.7% with significant female predominance (26.1% vs. 15.3%; P < .0001). Gastroesophageal reflux disease was prevalent in 17% of those aged below 35 years; 22.7% of those in the age range 36-55 years, and 38.5% of those who are above 56 years, which, accordingly, indicates that gastroesophageal reflux disease becomes significant as age increased (P < .0001). Male respondents younger than 35 years had much lower rates of gastroesophageal reflux disease than in older groups (5.7% vs. 22.7%, P < .0001), whereas in females older than 55 years, age was a significant factor for increasing gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (22.6% vs. 50%, P < .001). Reflux was observed in 18.1% of normal-weight respondents (body mass index 18.6-24.9), 25.6% of overweight (body mass index 25-29.9), and 30.4% of obese ( body mass index > 30) individuals (P = .001). Regarding marital status, the prevalence was the lowest in the single subjects' group (17%), close to average in the married group (23.8%), and the highest (41.7%) in divorced/widowed cases (P = .003). Stress significantly affected the gastroesophageal reflux disease distribution, affecting 59.4% of all respondents (P < .004). CONCLUSION: Gender, body mass index, increased age, marital status, and stress were precipitating factors of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Socioeconomic diversity, along with lifestyle/habits, did not play a crucial role in the gastroesophageal reflux disease prevalence distribution.

Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The main objective of the present study is to compare the safety, technical success and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) versus ultrasound-guided percutaneous core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that involved all patients with a solid pancreatic lesion who underwent EUS-FNA or US-CNB between November 2019 and February 2021. Of all patients, 69 (84.1%) had inoperable malignancy, whereas 13 (15.9%) had chronic pancreatitis. Resectability status was ascertained by computed tomography. All core needle biopsies were performed by the same interventional radiologist via ultrasound guidance with an 18-gauge semi-automatic tru-cut needle. All EUS-FNA procedures were performed by the same gastroenterologist with a 27-gauge EUS-FNA needle. Technical success is defined as if the region of interest is reached and specimen taken from the pancreatic lesion. Diagnostic yield is defined as the procurement of sufficient tissue for pathological examination. RESULTS: Overall, 52 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 9.8 years) who underwent EUS-FNA and 30 patients (60.1 ± 12.1 years) who underwent US-CNB were included. Solid lesions were most commonly (61.5% in EUS-FNA and 50.0% in US-CNB groups) located in pancreatic head in both groups. Mean size of the lesions was comparable in both groups as well. The technical success was 100% in both groups. In 12 (14.6%) patients, pathology results revealed inadequate sampling (11 × in the EUS-FNA and 1 × in the US-CNB group). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher in US-CNB group than in EUS-FNA group (96.7% vs. 78.8%, respectively, p = 0.048). Of 11 patients in the EUS-FNA with inadequate sampling, pancreatic lesions were located in the pancreatic head in 7 (63.6%). No major complications were observed in neither of the groups. As a minor complication, one case of slight abdominal pain was detected in the EUS-FNA group. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the present study, both US-CNB and EUS-FNA appeared safe; however, diagnostic yield in the US-CNB group was significantly higher.