AIM: To evaluate the preferred diagnosis and management practices of BE among Asian endoscopists.
METHODS: Endoscopists from across Asia were invited to participate in an online questionnaire comprising eleven questions regarding diagnosis, surveillance and management of BE.
RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine of 1016 (56.0%) respondents completed the survey, with most respondents from Japan (n = 310, 54.5%) and China (n = 129, 22.7%). Overall, the preferred endoscopic landmark of the esophagogastric junction was squamo-columnar junction (42.0%). Distal palisade vessels was preferred in Japan (59.0% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001) while outside Japan, squamo-columnar junction was preferred (59.5% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). Only 16.3% of respondents used Prague C and M criteria all the time. It was never used by 46.1% of Japanese, whereas 84.2% outside Japan, endoscopists used it to varying extents (P < 0.001). Most Asian endoscopists (70.8%) would survey long-segment BE without dysplasia every two years. Adherence to Seattle protocol was poor with only 6.3% always performing it. 73.2% of Japanese never did it, compared to 19.3% outside Japan (P < 0.001). The most preferred (74.0%) treatment of non-dysplastic BE was proton pump inhibitor only when the patient was symptomatic or had esophagitis. For BE with low-grade dysplasia, 6-monthly surveillance was preferred in 61.9% within Japan vs 47.9% outside Japan (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Diagnosis and management of BE varied within Asia, with stark contrast between Japan and outside Japan. Most Asian endoscopists chose squamo-columnar junction to be the landmark for esophagogastric junction, which is incorrect. Most also did not consistently use Prague criteria, and Seattle protocol. Lack of standardization, education and research are possible reasons.
METHODS: A population of 295 consecutive patients undergoing HRM and pH-study for persistent typical or atypical GERD symptoms was prospectively enrolled to build a model and a nomogram that provides a risk score for AET > 6%. Collected HRM data included IEM, EGJ-CI, EGJ type and SLR. A supplemental cohort of patients undergoing HRM and pH-study was also prospectively enrolled in 13 high-volume esophageal function laboratories across the world in order to validate the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model's accuracy. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was defined as acid exposure time >6%.
RESULTS: Out of the analyzed variables, SLR response and EGJ subtype 3 had the highest impact on the score (odd ratio 18.20 and 3.87, respectively). The external validation cohort consisted of 233 patients. In the validation model, the corrected Harrel c-index was 0.90. The model-fitting optimism adjusted calibration slope was 0.93 and the integrated calibration index was 0.07, indicating good calibration.
CONCLUSIONS: A novel HRM score for GERD diagnosis has been created and validated. The MS might be a useful screening tool to stratify the risk and the severity of GERD, allowing a more comprehensive pathophysiologic assessment of the anti-reflux barrier.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05851482).