Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Sep;107(9):1346-53.
doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.213. Epub 2012 Jul 10.

Mechanisms of increased gastroesophageal reflux in patients with cystic fibrosis

Affiliations

Mechanisms of increased gastroesophageal reflux in patients with cystic fibrosis

Ans Pauwels et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: Up to 80% of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) may have increased gastroesophageal reflux (GER). It has been suggested that increased GER is due to low basal lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and a high number of transient LES relaxations (TLESRs). The aim of our study was to reassess the mechanisms of GER in adult CF patients using state of the art upper-gastrointestinal physiology techniques: high-resolution manometry impedance (HRM-MII).

Methods: We studied 12 CF patients (age 32 range (19-58), 5 males/7 females) and 11 age-matched healthy volunteers (age 27 range (20-36), 4 males /7 females). HRM-MII was performed in a semi-recumbent position for 30 min during fasting and for 2 h after a standard meal (1,000 kcal). We measured total reflux and proximal extent of reflux with impedance; basal LES pressure, TLESRs, and gastroesophageal pressure gradient (GEPG) with HRM.

Results: Basal LES pressure was lower in CF patients compared with healthy controls, both in the pre- and postprandial period (preprandial 13 (7-22) vs. 24 (13-26) mm Hg, P = 0.04; postprandial 10 (8-14) vs. 18 (10-31) mm Hg, P = 0.01) and TLESRs were the main mechanism for reflux both in CF and in controls. We could not find a difference in the number of TLESRs in CF patients compared with healthy (14 (10-20) vs. 13 (10-24), P = not significant). However, reflux during TLESRs was more frequent in CF compared with healthy volunteers (80 (70-95) vs. 42 (20-78) %, P = 0.0058). GEPG during TLESRs was significantly higher in CF than in controls during inspiration (13.5 (9.5-15.8) vs. 7 (4-9.9) mm Hg, P = 0.004). This difference was due to a lower inspiratory intra-thoracic pressure in CF patients (-8.2 (-10.2-(-4.6) vs. -0.08 (-5.7-2.7) mm Hg, P = 0.002). Compared with controls, CF patients had significantly higher number of reflux episodes (13 (6-20) vs. 7 (3-9), P = 0.014) and CF patients also showed a higher proportion of reflux episodes with a high proximal extent compared with healthy volunteers (49 (22-50) vs. 0 (0-17) %, P = 0.0028).

Conclusions: CF patients have increased GER with a high proximal extent. Although we could not find a higher number of TLESRs in CF, there is a higher proportion of TLESRs associated with reflux. Unlike non-CF GER disease patients (with increased intra-abdominal pressure), reflux during TLESRs in CF is probably due to an increased GEPG mainly generated by a greater inspiratory negative intra-thoracic pressure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types