Department of Gastroenterology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo/SP, Brazil.
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009;64(7):669-74. doi: 10.1590/S1807-59322009000700011.
The purpose of this study was to compare esophageal infusion with 0.1 N hydrochloric acid (HCl) to esophageal infusion with saline in patients presenting with typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and erosive esophagitis.
Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed on 44 prospective subjects, 29 of whom were included in the study. Eighteen patients presented with normal esophagi (Control Group "C"), nine of whom were infused with HCl and nine with saline. Eleven patients presented with erosive esophagitis (Lesion Group "L"), five of whom were infused with HCl and six with saline. Biopsies of the esophageal mucosa were collected before and after infusions.
No statistically significant difference was found between the two types of infusions in terms of the dilation of the intercellular space of the esophageal epithelium, regardless of the status of the patient.
Response to HCl infusion cannot be used as a marker for gastroesophageal reflux disease.
本研究旨在比较盐酸(HCl)和生理盐水对有典型胃食管反流症状和食管侵蚀性炎症患者的食管内灌注作用。
对 44 名前瞻性受试者进行上消化道内镜检查,其中 29 名符合纳入标准。18 名受试者食管正常(对照组“C”),其中 9 名给予 HCl 灌注,9 名给予生理盐水灌注。11 名受试者有食管侵蚀性炎症(病变组“L”),其中 5 名给予 HCl 灌注,6 名给予生理盐水灌注。灌注前后采集食管黏膜活检标本。
无论患者状态如何,两种灌注方式对食管上皮细胞间隙扩张的作用无统计学差异。
HCl 灌注反应不能作为胃食管反流病的标志物。