洛杉矶食管炎是胃食管反流病的确凿诊断证据:里昂共识 2.0 的验证。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Gastroenterology Report Pub Date : 2025-03-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/gastro/goaf004
Jing Chen, Peiwen Dong, Songfeng Chen, Qianjun Zhuang, Mengyu Zhang, Kaidi Sun, Feng Tang, Qiong Wang, Yinglian Xiao
{"title":"洛杉矶食管炎是胃食管反流病的确凿诊断证据:里昂共识 2.0 的验证。","authors":"Jing Chen, Peiwen Dong, Songfeng Chen, Qianjun Zhuang, Mengyu Zhang, Kaidi Sun, Feng Tang, Qiong Wang, Yinglian Xiao","doi":"10.1093/gastro/goaf004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Recently, Lyon Consensus 2.0 recommended Los Angeles (LA)-B esophagitis as conclusive evidence and LA-A esophagitis as borderline evidence for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of LA-B and LA-A esophagitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with typical reflux symptoms who underwent endoscopy examination and received acid-suppressive therapy from two tertiary hospitals [the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, P. R. China) and the Third People's Hospital of Chengdu (Chengdu, P. R. China)] were retrospectively included. Acid-suppression response rates, endoscopy results, motility, and reflux parameters were compared between patients with different grades of esophagitis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 401 patients were enrolled, among whom 254 were without reflux esophagitis (RE), 51 had LA-A esophagitis, 44 had LA-B esophagitis, and 52 had LA-C/D esophagitis. Patients with LA-B esophagitis and LA-C/D esophagitis had significantly higher acid-suppressive response rates than non-RE patients (<i>P </i><<i> </i>0.05), whereas no significant difference was found between patients with LA-A esophagitis and non-RE patients (non-RE vs LA-A vs LA-B vs LA-C/D: 52.4% vs 70.6% vs 75.0% vs 82.7%). Among patients with LA-A esophagitis, those with a number of reflux episodes that exceeded 80 per day (90.0% vs 52.4%, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>0.044) or hypotensive esophagogastric junction (72.4% vs 52.4%, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>0.040) had significantly higher acid-suppressive response rates than non-RE patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LA-B esophagitis can be regarded as conclusive evidence for GERD and initiate acid-suppressive therapy. LA-A esophagitis did not establish a definite GERD diagnosis alone. When combined with adjunctive or supportive evidence, the acid-suppressive therapy response rate of LA-A esophagitis improved.</p>","PeriodicalId":54275,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Report","volume":"13 ","pages":"goaf004"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11904300/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Los Angeles-B esophagitis is a conclusive diagnostic evidence for gastroesophageal reflux disease: the validation of Lyon Consensus 2.0.\",\"authors\":\"Jing Chen, Peiwen Dong, Songfeng Chen, Qianjun Zhuang, Mengyu Zhang, Kaidi Sun, Feng Tang, Qiong Wang, Yinglian Xiao\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/gastro/goaf004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Recently, Lyon Consensus 2.0 recommended Los Angeles (LA)-B esophagitis as conclusive evidence and LA-A esophagitis as borderline evidence for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of LA-B and LA-A esophagitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with typical reflux symptoms who underwent endoscopy examination and received acid-suppressive therapy from two tertiary hospitals [the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, P. R. China) and the Third People's Hospital of Chengdu (Chengdu, P. R. China)] were retrospectively included. Acid-suppression response rates, endoscopy results, motility, and reflux parameters were compared between patients with different grades of esophagitis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 401 patients were enrolled, among whom 254 were without reflux esophagitis (RE), 51 had LA-A esophagitis, 44 had LA-B esophagitis, and 52 had LA-C/D esophagitis. Patients with LA-B esophagitis and LA-C/D esophagitis had significantly higher acid-suppressive response rates than non-RE patients (<i>P </i><<i> </i>0.05), whereas no significant difference was found between patients with LA-A esophagitis and non-RE patients (non-RE vs LA-A vs LA-B vs LA-C/D: 52.4% vs 70.6% vs 75.0% vs 82.7%). Among patients with LA-A esophagitis, those with a number of reflux episodes that exceeded 80 per day (90.0% vs 52.4%, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>0.044) or hypotensive esophagogastric junction (72.4% vs 52.4%, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>0.040) had significantly higher acid-suppressive response rates than non-RE patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LA-B esophagitis can be regarded as conclusive evidence for GERD and initiate acid-suppressive therapy. LA-A esophagitis did not establish a definite GERD diagnosis alone. When combined with adjunctive or supportive evidence, the acid-suppressive therapy response rate of LA-A esophagitis improved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastroenterology Report\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"goaf004\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11904300/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastroenterology Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goaf004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Report","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goaf004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:最近,里昂共识2.0推荐洛杉矶(LA)-B食管炎作为胃食管反流病(GERD)的决定性证据,LA- a食管炎作为胃食管反流病(GERD)的边缘证据。本研究旨在探讨LA-B和LA-A食管炎的诊断价值。方法:回顾性分析中山大学第一附属医院(中国广州)和成都市第三人民医院(中国成都)两家三级医院经内镜检查并接受抑酸治疗的有典型反流症状的患者。比较不同等级食管炎患者的抑酸反应率、内镜检查结果、运动性和反流参数。结果:共纳入401例患者,其中254例无反流性食管炎(RE), 51例LA-A型食管炎,44例LA-B型食管炎,52例LA-C/D型食管炎。LA-B食管炎和LA-C/D食管炎患者的抑酸反应率显著高于非re患者(P < 0.05),而LA-A食管炎患者与非re患者的抑酸反应率差异无统计学意义(非re vs LA-A vs LA-B vs LA-C/D: 52.4% vs 70.6% vs 75.0% vs 82.7%)。在LA-A食管炎患者中,每天反流次数超过80次(90.0% vs 52.4%, P = 0.044)或食管胃结低血压(72.4% vs 52.4%, P = 0.040)的患者抑酸率显著高于非re患者。结论:LA-B食管炎可作为胃食管反流的确凿证据,并可启动抑酸治疗。LA-A型食管炎不能单独明确诊断为胃食管反流。当结合辅助或支持证据时,LA-A食管炎的抑酸治疗有效率提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Los Angeles-B esophagitis is a conclusive diagnostic evidence for gastroesophageal reflux disease: the validation of Lyon Consensus 2.0.

Background and aims: Recently, Lyon Consensus 2.0 recommended Los Angeles (LA)-B esophagitis as conclusive evidence and LA-A esophagitis as borderline evidence for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of LA-B and LA-A esophagitis.

Methods: Patients with typical reflux symptoms who underwent endoscopy examination and received acid-suppressive therapy from two tertiary hospitals [the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, P. R. China) and the Third People's Hospital of Chengdu (Chengdu, P. R. China)] were retrospectively included. Acid-suppression response rates, endoscopy results, motility, and reflux parameters were compared between patients with different grades of esophagitis.

Results: In total, 401 patients were enrolled, among whom 254 were without reflux esophagitis (RE), 51 had LA-A esophagitis, 44 had LA-B esophagitis, and 52 had LA-C/D esophagitis. Patients with LA-B esophagitis and LA-C/D esophagitis had significantly higher acid-suppressive response rates than non-RE patients (P <0.05), whereas no significant difference was found between patients with LA-A esophagitis and non-RE patients (non-RE vs LA-A vs LA-B vs LA-C/D: 52.4% vs 70.6% vs 75.0% vs 82.7%). Among patients with LA-A esophagitis, those with a number of reflux episodes that exceeded 80 per day (90.0% vs 52.4%, P =0.044) or hypotensive esophagogastric junction (72.4% vs 52.4%, P =0.040) had significantly higher acid-suppressive response rates than non-RE patients.

Conclusions: LA-B esophagitis can be regarded as conclusive evidence for GERD and initiate acid-suppressive therapy. LA-A esophagitis did not establish a definite GERD diagnosis alone. When combined with adjunctive or supportive evidence, the acid-suppressive therapy response rate of LA-A esophagitis improved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gastroenterology Report
Gastroenterology Report Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
63
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology Report is an international fully open access (OA) online only journal, covering all areas related to gastrointestinal sciences, including studies of the alimentary tract, liver, biliary, pancreas, enteral nutrition and related fields. The journal aims to publish high quality research articles on both basic and clinical gastroenterology, authoritative reviews that bring together new advances in the field, as well as commentaries and highlight pieces that provide expert analysis of topical issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信