ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although gastro-oesophageal reflux is a recognised cause of chronic cough, the role of oesophageal dysmotility is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of abnormal oesophageal motility in a selected group of patients with chronic cough. METHODS: Oesophageal manometry and 24 hour pH monitoring were performed in 43 patients with chronic cough, 34 of whom had symptoms suggestive of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Comparative manometric measurements were made in 21 healthy subjects. RESULTS: Nine patients with chronic cough had normal manometry and 24 hour pH. Of the remaining 34 patients, 11 (32%) had abnormal manometry alone, five (15%) had abnormal 24 hour pH monitoring alone, and in 18 (53%) both tests were abnormal. Only one patient in the control group had manometric abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: These results point to a previously unrecognised high prevalence of abnormal oesophageal manometry in patients presenting with chronic cough. Oesophageal dysmotility may therefore be important in the pathogenesis of cough in these patients.
Subject(s)
Cough/etiology , Esophageal Motility Disorders/complications , Adult , Aged , Ambulatory Care , Chronic Disease , Circadian Rhythm , Cough/physiopathology , Female , Gastroesophageal Reflux/complications , Gastroesophageal Reflux/drug therapy , Humans , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration , Male , Manometry , Middle Aged , PressureABSTRACT
Ninety-three adult patients with benign esophageal stricture were randomized to receive balloon or bougie dilatation. Eighty-five patients were eligible for analysis and were followed prospectively for a year. Twenty-four patients required repeat dilatation within a year, but 50 patients completed a year's follow-up without further dilatation. The bougie group initially had a better symptomatic result, experiencing significantly less dysphagia at five months, although this difference had disappeared at one year. Eighteen patients in the balloon group required redilatation for symptoms compared with six in the bougie group. The bougie group had a significantly greater increase in their stricture diameter, and this was still present at one year after dilatation. There was no significant difference in safety or patient acceptability. Balloons are probably more costly to use than bougies. Bougie dilatation is to be preferred to balloon dilatation in adults except in special circumstances.
Subject(s)
Catheterization , Esophageal Stenosis/therapy , Aged , Deglutition Disorders/epidemiology , Deglutition Disorders/therapy , Dilatation/instrumentation , Esophageal Stenosis/epidemiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Recurrence , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Seventy one patients with benign oesophageal strictures were randomised to receive balloon or bougie dilatation. Sixty five patients were eligible for analysis. At the end of five months the balloon group had significantly more dysphagia and the calibre of the strictures in the balloon group had narrowed by a greater degree. The methods were equally safe and acceptable to patients. While the choice of the method of dilatation depends on the individual patient's needs and operator experience, bougie dilatation is more effective in reducing dysphagia and maintaining stricture patency.
Subject(s)
Dilatation/methods , Esophageal Stenosis/therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Clinical Trials as Topic , Dilatation/instrumentation , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Random AllocationABSTRACT
A newly available balloon dilator for the treatment of achalasia and its advantages over existing instruments are discussed. Our experience with its use in seven patients is described.
Subject(s)
Catheterization/instrumentation , Esophageal Achalasia/therapy , Adult , Dilatation/instrumentation , Female , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
Fifty patients with medically refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux were treated by the insertion of an Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis. All patients had a pre-operative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, 32 were investigated with 15 h overnight oesophageal pH studies combined with oesophageal bile sampling and 20 underwent oesophageal manometric studies. At pre-operative endoscopy 45 patients had evidence of oesophagitis and the 5 who did not had pathological reflux demonstrated on overnight pH testing. Postoperatively the main clinical problem was dysphagia which appeared to settle with time but left one-third of patients with mild dysphagia at the end of 12 months. A further 12 per cent had residual moderate to severe dysphagia which required the removal of the prosthesis in five patients (10 per cent). In only one patient was the dysphagia due to prosthetic migration and this was the first patient in the series. Subsequently, we have had no problems with prosthetic migration, disruption, or erosion into the oesophagus. The overnight pH studies confirmed the efficacy of the prosthesis in preventing reflux which correlated with symptomatic improvement. We conclude that, while the Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis is an effective device, it has a disturbingly high incidence of postoperative dysphagia though this appears to settle with time, leaving around 10 per cent of patients with severe dysphagia which will necessitate removal of the prosthesis and one-third with mild dysphagia which may settle with the further passage of time.
