Cargando…
The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones?
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a complex disorder with heterogeneous symptoms and a multifaceted pathogenetic basis, which prevent a simple diagnostic algorithm or any categorical classification. Clinical history, questionnaires and response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy are insu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7329153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32606254 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm20046 |
_version_ | 1783552861805740032 |
---|---|
author | Ghisa, Matteo Barberio, Brigida Savarino, Vincenzo Marabotto, Elisa Ribolsi, Mentore Bodini, Giorgia Zingone, Fabiana Frazzoni, Marzio Savarino, Edoardo |
author_facet | Ghisa, Matteo Barberio, Brigida Savarino, Vincenzo Marabotto, Elisa Ribolsi, Mentore Bodini, Giorgia Zingone, Fabiana Frazzoni, Marzio Savarino, Edoardo |
author_sort | Ghisa, Matteo |
collection | PubMed |
description | Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a complex disorder with heterogeneous symptoms and a multifaceted pathogenetic basis, which prevent a simple diagnostic algorithm or any categorical classification. Clinical history, questionnaires and response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy are insufficient tools to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD and further investigations are frequently required. The Lyon Consensus goes beyond the previous classifications and defines endoscopic and functional parameters able to establish the presence of GERD. Evidences for reflux include high-grade erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, and peptic strictures at endoscopy as well as esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring. Even if a normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, its combination with distal acid exposure time < 4% on off-PPI pH-impedance monitoring provides sufficient evidence refuting this diagnosis. Reflux-symptom association on pH-monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux-triggered symptoms and may predict a better treatment outcome, when present. Also recommendations to perform pH-impedance “on” or “off” PPI are well depicted. When endoscopy and pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (eg, microscopic esophagitis), high-resolution manometry (ie, ineffective esophagogastric barrier and esophageal body hypomotility), and novel impedance metrics, such as mean nocturnal baseline impedance and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index, can contribute to better identify patients with GERD. Definition of individual patient phenotype, based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the esophagogastric junction, and clinical presentation, will lead to manage GERD patients with a tailored approach chosen among different types of therapy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7329153 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73291532020-07-10 The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones? Ghisa, Matteo Barberio, Brigida Savarino, Vincenzo Marabotto, Elisa Ribolsi, Mentore Bodini, Giorgia Zingone, Fabiana Frazzoni, Marzio Savarino, Edoardo J Neurogastroenterol Motil Review Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a complex disorder with heterogeneous symptoms and a multifaceted pathogenetic basis, which prevent a simple diagnostic algorithm or any categorical classification. Clinical history, questionnaires and response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy are insufficient tools to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD and further investigations are frequently required. The Lyon Consensus goes beyond the previous classifications and defines endoscopic and functional parameters able to establish the presence of GERD. Evidences for reflux include high-grade erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, and peptic strictures at endoscopy as well as esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring. Even if a normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, its combination with distal acid exposure time < 4% on off-PPI pH-impedance monitoring provides sufficient evidence refuting this diagnosis. Reflux-symptom association on pH-monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux-triggered symptoms and may predict a better treatment outcome, when present. Also recommendations to perform pH-impedance “on” or “off” PPI are well depicted. When endoscopy and pH-metry or combined pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (eg, microscopic esophagitis), high-resolution manometry (ie, ineffective esophagogastric barrier and esophageal body hypomotility), and novel impedance metrics, such as mean nocturnal baseline impedance and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index, can contribute to better identify patients with GERD. Definition of individual patient phenotype, based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the esophagogastric junction, and clinical presentation, will lead to manage GERD patients with a tailored approach chosen among different types of therapy. The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2020-07-30 2020-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7329153/ /pubmed/32606254 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm20046 Text en © 2020 The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Ghisa, Matteo Barberio, Brigida Savarino, Vincenzo Marabotto, Elisa Ribolsi, Mentore Bodini, Giorgia Zingone, Fabiana Frazzoni, Marzio Savarino, Edoardo The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones? |
title | The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones? |
title_full | The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones? |
title_fullStr | The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones? |
title_full_unstemmed | The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones? |
title_short | The Lyon Consensus: Does It Differ From the Previous Ones? |
title_sort | lyon consensus: does it differ from the previous ones? |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7329153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32606254 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm20046 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ghisamatteo thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT barberiobrigida thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT savarinovincenzo thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT marabottoelisa thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT ribolsimentore thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT bodinigiorgia thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT zingonefabiana thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT frazzonimarzio thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT savarinoedoardo thelyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT ghisamatteo lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT barberiobrigida lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT savarinovincenzo lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT marabottoelisa lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT ribolsimentore lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT bodinigiorgia lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT zingonefabiana lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT frazzonimarzio lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones AT savarinoedoardo lyonconsensusdoesitdifferfromthepreviousones |