Detection of minimal mucosal esophageal lesions in non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease using optical enhancement plus optical magnification

Abstract

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of endoscopy using optical enhancement (OE system) with optical magnification to predict reflux in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients.

Patients and methods A prospective, non-randomized, single-blind study was performed from September 2015 to January 2016. Participants suffered from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and were assigned to the NERD group or the non-reflux disease control group based on endoscopic findings and a 24-hour pH-impedance-monitoring test. Endoscopy using the OE system with optical magnification was performed in all patients to detect minimal mucosal esophageal lesions (MMEL), specifically abnormalities in the numbers, dilation, and tortuosity of intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCLs). Biopsies were obtained from each esophageal segment, and diagnoses from images were compared to diagnoses of reflux and inflammation using 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring and histology, respectively.

Results Fifty-seven patients were included (36 in the NERD group, 21 in the control group). IPCLs were observed in 94.4 % of cases in the NERD group and 38 % of cases in the control group (P  < 0.05). There were significant differences in IPCL abnormalities between groups that were associated with histologically identified inflammation. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 94.4 %, 61.9 %, 80.9 %, 86.6 %, and 82.4 %, respectively. The 24-hour pH-impedance-monitoring test was used as the gold standard. The Kappa interobserver and intraobserver values were 0.85 and 0.90, respectively.

Conclusion The OE system with optical magnification can detect MMEL and predict NERD with high sensitivity, accuracy, and interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Presence of IPCLs highly correlates with histologically identified inflammation.

• References

• 1 Gomes Jr CA, Loução TS, Carpi G. et al. A study on the diagnosis of minimal endoscopic lesions in nonerosive reflux esophagitis using computed virtual chromoendoscopy (FICE). Arq Gastroenterol 2011; 48: 167-170
• 2 Alzubaidi M, Gabbard S. GERD: Diagnosing and treating the burn. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82: 685-692
• 3 Takeshima F, Hashiguchi K, Onitsuka Y. et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors and the effects of switching to 20 mg esomeprazole on reflux symptoms and quality of life. Med Sci Monit 2015; 21: 4111-4121
• 4 Vela MF. Diagnostic work-up of GERD. Gastrointest Endoscopy Clin N Am 2014; 24: 655-666
• 5 Dent J, Armstrong D, Delaney B. et al. Symptom evaluation in reflux disease: workshop background, processes, terminology, recommendations, and discussion outputs. Gut 2004; 53: 1-24
• 6 Kim MS, Choi SR, Roh MH. et al. Efficacy of I-scan endoscopy in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease with minimal change. Clin Endosc 2011; 44: 27-32
• 7 Robles-Medranda C, Del Valle RS, Soria Alcívar M. et al. Pentax I-SCAN with magnification for the identification of under diagnosis organic esophageal lesions (barretʼs esophagus and esophagitis) in patients with functional dyspepsia: a prospective study. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: S-524
• 8 Netinatsunton N, Sottisuporn J, Attasaranya S. et al. i-Scan detection of minimal change esophagitis in dyspeptic patients with or without gastroesophageal reflux disease. BMC Gastroenterol 2016; 16: 1-8
• 9 Sharma P, Wani S, Bansal S. et al. A feasibility trial of narrow band imaging endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 454-464
• 10 Zavala-Gonzáles MA, Azamar-Jacome AA. et al. Validation and diagnostic usefulness of gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire in a primary care level in Mexico. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014; 20: 475-482
• 11 Kodashima S, Fujishiro M. Novel image-enhaced endoscopy with i-scan technology. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 1043-1049
• 12 Lundell LR, Dent J, Bennett JR. et al. Endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut 1999; 45: 172-180
• 13 Kandulski A, Weigt J, Caro C. et al. Esophageal intraluminal baseline impedance differentiates gastroesophageal reflux disease from functional heartburn. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1075-1081
• 14 Kasap E, Zeybel M, Aşık G. et al. Correlation among standard endoscopy, narrow band imaging, and histopathological findings in the diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2011; 20: 127-130
• 15 Lv J, Liu D, Ma SY. et al. Investigation of relationships among gastroesophageal reflux disease subtypes using narrow band imaging magnifying endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 8391-8397
• 16 Zentilin P, Savarino V, Mastracci L. et al. Reassessment of the diagnostic value of histology in patients with GERD, using multiple biopsy sites and an appropriate control group. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 2299-2306
• 17 Miyasaka M, Hirakawa M, Nakamura K. et al. The endoscopic diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease using flexible spectral imaging color enhancement image: feasibility trial. Dis Esophagus 2011; 24: 395-400
• 18 Nandurkar S, Talley NJ, Martin CJ. et al. Esophageal histology does not provide additional useful information overclinical assessment in identifying reflux patients presenting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2000; 45: 217-224
• 19 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 20 Azumi T, Adachi K, Furuta K. et al. Esophageal epithelial surface in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: An electron microscopic study. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 5712-5716
• 21 Gatopoulou A, Mimidis K, Giatromanolaki A. et al. Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease. BMC Gastroenterol 2005; 5: 2
• 22 Falk GW. Is conventional endoscopic identification of non-erosive reflux disease adequate?. Digestion 2008; 78: 17-23
• 23 Gossner L. Potential contribution of novel imaging modalities in non-erosive reflux disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 617-624
• 24 Kiesslich R, Kanzler S, Vieth M. et al. Minimal chance esophagitis: prospective comparison of endoscopic and histological markers between patients with non-erosive reflux disease and normal controls using magnifying endoscopy. Dig Dis 2004; 22: 221-227
• 25 Yoshikawa I, Yamasaki M, Yamasaki T. et al. Lugol chromoendoscopy as a diagnostic tool in so-called endoscopy-negative GERD. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 698-703
• 26 Dy FT, Sollano J, Quino A. et al. Lugol’s chromoendoscopy improves the detection of esophagitis in patients with nonerosive reflux disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 243