Esophageal Acid Clearance Is Faster in Patients with Barrett's Esophagus Than in Healthy Controls During Random Swallowing

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Impaired esophageal acid clearance may be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of Barrett’s esophagus. However, few studies have measured acid clearance as such in these patients. In this explorative, cross-sectional study, we aimed to compare esophageal acid clearance and swallowing rate in patients with Barrett’s esophagus to that in healthy controls. METHODS: A total of 26 patients with histology-confirmed Barrett’s esophagus and 12 healthy controls underwent (1) upper endoscopy, (2) an acid clearance test using a pH-impedance probe under controlled conditions including controlled and random swallowing, and (3) an ambulatory pH-impedance measurement. RESULTS: Compared with controls and when swallowing randomly, patients cleared acid 46% faster (P = 0.008). Furthermore, patients swallowed 60% more frequently (mean swallows/minute: 1.90 ± 0.74 vs 1.19 ± 0.58; P = 0.005), and acid clearance time decreased with greater random swallowing rate (P < 0.001). Swallowing rate increased with lower distal esophageal baseline impedance (P = 0.014). Ambulatory acid exposure was greater in patients (P = 0.033), but clearance times assessed from the ambulatory pH-measurement and acid clearance test were not correlated (all P > 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: More frequent swallowing and thus faster acid clearance in Barrett’s esophagus may constitute a protective reflex due to impaired mucosal integrity and possibly acid hypersensitivity. Despite these reinforced mechanisms, acid clearance ability seems to be overthrown by repeated, retrograde acid reflux, thus resulting in increased esophageal acid exposure and consequently mucosal changes

Additional file 1 of Convergent and discriminant validity of the Minimal Eating Observation Form – version II: a cross-sectional study

Background: The Minimal Eating Observation Form – Version II (MEOF-II) is a brief and easy to use screening tool for eating difficulties, that is psychometrically robust. The aim of this study was to explore convergent (measuring similar constructs) and discriminant (measuring somewhat different constructs) validity of the MEOF-II to other validated dysphagia specific, activity and participation related instruments. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants (n = 100, mean age 72, n = 42 women), diagnosed with either chronic pulmonary disease, Parkinson´s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, or stroke were recruited from rehabilitation centres. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical-rated assessments, capturing eating ability in general and swallowing in specific, included: The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI), the 4-question test (4QT), the Minimal Eating Observation Form – II, the Volume – Viscosity Swallow Test (V-VST), Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) documented according to the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Type of oral intake was documented using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Activities in daily living was assessed with Barthel index (BI). Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to analyze associations. The MEOF-II total score was hypothesised to have moderate correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with the other assessments, besides with PAS and FOIS (weak correlations, r < 0.3). Results: In total 78 participants had any type of eating difficulties (MEOF-II), 69 reported dysphagia (4QT), 62 had dysphagia according to V-VST, 29 showed evidence of penetration/aspiration (PAS), and 31 participants had decreased oral intake ability (FOIS). The MEOF-II total score had moderate correlations with DHI, BI, 4QT, V-VST volume, and weak correlations with V-VST dysphagia and viscosity, PAS, and FOIS. Comparing a prior hypothesised correlation strengths against empirical findings showed that 83% of the hypothesised correlations were correct. Conclusions: The MEOF-II is a holistic and objective screening tool that can indicate the need for further assessment and corresponds well with the persons’ subjective experiences. MEOF-II does not specifically assess the risk for penetration/aspiration