T Loughney | PubMed Health

PubMed1998

Esophageal manometry and ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring in patients with short and long segment Barrett's esophagus.

OBJECTIVE: Short segment Barrett's esophagus (SSBE) is defined as the presence of specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) in the distal 2-3 cm of the esophagus. Although gastroesophageal reflux and heartburn is very common in these patients, the pathophysiology of the development of a short segment of SIM versus a longer segment of Barrett's epithelium is not clear. The aim of this study was to assess the extent of gastroesophageal reflux in short versus long segments of SIM. METHODS: Of 203 consecutive patients undergoing endoscopy with two biopsies performed just distal to the squamocolumnar junction, 28 patients were identified as having SSBE as evidenced by SIM on biopsy. Twenty-two SSBE patients underwent esophageal manometry and 24-h dual pH monitoring, and the results were compared with 18 long segment Barrett's esophagus (LSBE) patients and 15 patients with normal 24-h pH studies. RESULTS: SSBE and LSBE patients were significantly older than normal subjects (p < 0.0001). Also, lower esophageal sphincter pressure was significantly greater in SSBE patients compared with LSBE patients (12.3 +/- 1.6 vs 5.2 +/- 1.0 mm Hg,p < 0.0008). LSBE patients had a significantly lower distal esophageal peristaltic amplitude as compared with normals (p < 0.012). At 5 cm proximal to the LES, SSBE patients had significantly lower total 24-h pH scores, percent upright and percent supine reflux as compared with LSBE patients. Similarly, when measured at the proximal LES (0 cm), SSBE patients had significantly lower 24-h pH scores when compared with LSBE patients (p < 0.03), whereas percent upright and percent supine reflux were not significantly different. Both LSBE and SSBE patients had a greater degree of GER measured at 5 cm above and just proximal to the LES when compared with normals. CONCLUSION: As a group, SSBE patients have more competent LES sphincters and less gastroesophageal reflux at 0 and 5 cm above the LES as compared with patients with LSBE. These data indicate that the degree and length of acid exposure in the esophagus are important factors in the pathogenesis of SIM involvement of the esophagus.

Barrett Esophagus↗

PubMed1996

Evaluation of internists' spirometric interpretations.

BACKGROUND: Correct interpretation of screening spirometry results is essential in making accurate clinical diagnoses and directing subsequent pulmonary evaluation. The general internist is largely responsible for interpreting screening spirometric tests at community hospitals. However, reports of new guidelines for screening spirometry are infrequently published in the general internal medicine literature. This can lead to incorrect interpretations. We sought to evaluate whether spirometric interpretations by a group of practicing general internists differed from those of two board-certified pulmonologists using guidelines published by the American Thoracic Society (ATS). METHODS: As part of a Continuous Quality Improvement project, all available screening spirometric tests over a 3-month period at two area community hospitals were reviewed. Only those performed on individuals age 18 or older were included in the analysis. Comparison was made between the interpretations of staff internists and those of two pulmonologists, who were blinded to the results of all other interpretations. We analyzed 110 screening spirometric tests from 84 males and 26 females. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 77 (mean 41 +/- 13 years of age). RESULTS: There was 97% concordance between the two pulmonologists' interpretations. In three cases, interpretations of only one pulmonologist agreed with those of the internists. The internists and both pulmonologists agreed in 73 cases. The majority of spirometric results in this subgroup were normal (n = 54). Both pulmonologists disagreed with internists' nomenclature in five cases. There was complete disagreement between the pulmonologists and the internists in the other 29 cases. Using the pulmonologists' interpretations as the "gold standard," the sensitivity (the internists' ability to correctly identify abnormal spirometric results) was 58.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.2%, 73.3%), the specificity was 81.8% (95% CI 70.0%, 89.8%), the positive predictive value was 66.7% (95% CI 49.0%, 80.9%), and the negative predictive value was 76.1% (95% CI 64.3%, 85.0%). The most common inaccurate interpretations made by internists were "small airways disease" when spirometric results were normal (n = 8); "normal" when a restrictive pattern was present (n = 6), and "normal" when an abnormal flow-volume loop suggesting possible upper airway obstruction was present (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: The spirometric interpretations of a group of general internists differed significantly from those of two board-certified pulmonologists using published guidelines in approximately one third of cases. This may be because subspecialty guidelines are infrequently published in the general internal medicine literature. We believe that wider dissemination of these interpretative guidelines and ongoing physician education would improve general internists' ability to identify patients who require further pulmonary evaluation.

Adolescent↗