Search

Background: In high resolution manometry (HRM), distal contractile integral post multiple rapid swallow augmentation is considered as contraction reserve. The relationship between contraction reserve and esophageal acid reflux remains unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the correlation between contraction reserve and esophageal acid exposure in ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and normal HRM. Methods: Patients who underwent HRM and ambulatory reflux monitoring were retrospectively screened. Those with diagnosis of normal HRM or IEM were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients with abnormal acid exposure time (AET) was compared between patients with and without contraction reserve. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of abnormal AET and contraction reserve. Results: A total of 338 patients, including 264 normal HRM and 74 IEM, were included in the analysis. In patients with normal HRM, proportion of abnormal total AET (AET > 6.0%) was significantly lower in patients with supine contraction reserve than patients without contraction reserve (13.85% vs. 24.63%, p = 0.027). Multivariate regression analysis showed that supine contraction reserve could independently predict abnormal total AET (OR = 0.468, 95% CI: 0.249–0.948, p = 0.034), while upright contraction reserve trended strongly (OR = 0.558, 95% CI: 0.290–1.071, p = 0.079). Subgroup analysis showed that upright contraction reserve was an independent predictor of abnormal total AET in patients with 50–70% infective swallows (OR = 0.205, 95% CI: 0.051–0.821, p = 0.025), whereas supine contraction reserve did not have predictive value (p = 0.359). Conclusions: Supine contraction reserve correlates with esophageal acid reflux in patients with normal HRM, while only upright contraction reserve correlates with esophageal acid reflux in patients with infective swallows of 50–70%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antidepressants have been empirically used in the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD). However, results from recent clinical trials investigating their efficacy are conflicting. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of antidepressants in the management of FD in adults. Methods: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and BIOSIS Previews were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating efficacy of antidepressants in the management of FD in adult patients. Data of overall symptom unimproved and adverse events were compared between the antidepressants and placebo group. Results: The search strategy identified 432 citations. Of those, eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled relative risk (RR) of symptom unimproved with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) versus placebo was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.94, P = 0.01; I2 = 0%, P = 0.39). By contrast, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) did not show a benefit over placebo (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.17, P = 0.95; I2 = 0%, P = 0.82). Adverse events were significantly more frequent among patients receiving antidepressants than those receiving placebos (RR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.35, P = 0.007). Conclusion: TCAs but not SSRIs, are effective in the treatment of FD, but antidepressants were also associated with more adverse events compared with placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]