In between, we have a sprinkling of ‘others’ including esophageal motility disorders, musculoskeletal pains, and upper gastrointestinal (GI) conditions such as pancreaticobiliary/hepatic disease or peptic ulceration. Gastroesophageal reflux disease accounts for up to 60% of presentations with NCCP. This is most commonly diagnosed in the emergency department (ED) and treated with acid suppression. If the patient responds to treatment, and the pain remains under control or disappears, the patient may never see (or need to see) a gastroenterologist. Indeed most patients seen in the
ED, even at the Mayo Clinic, are managed AZD1208 in vivo without gastrointestinal consultation or investigation.1 A proportion of patients do not respond to acid suppression and are referred for gastroenterological consultation, following which they may undergo a battery of tests including upper GI endoscopy, esophageal manometry and pH testing; the results of these tests may or may not lead to a more specific diagnosis. In many patients, no specific cause is found and, if the exclusion of cardiac disease has been correct, the long term prognosis is benign.2 The manuscript in the current issue of the Journal3 examines the role of ambulatory pH/impedance monitoring in clarifying the diagnosis of patients with NCCP and, indirectly, the role of nonacid
selleckchem reflux in causing the chest pain. The authors NVP-BEZ235 research buy have examined a group of consecutive patients referred with NCCP following cardiological investigation and characterized them in terms of gastroesophageal reflux disease by symptom assessment, upper GI endoscopy, esophageal manometry, pH/impedance studies and a trial of acid suppression. The use of impedance in addition to pH measurement allowed the assessment of bolus clearance as well as acid clearance and the authors have utilized the concept of ‘pathologic bolus exposure’ to denote prolonged residence of lower esophageal contents. The authors demonstrate that, although a proportion of patients
could be diagnosed with reflux disease on the basis of the pH data alone, an additional group of patients was found to have (what they defined to be) abnormal (pathologic) bolus exposure. Unfortunately, the lack of normal and disease control groups means that the sensitivity and specificity of the test could not be evaluated, but the observation fits with the general concept that gastroesophageal reflux may cause symptoms by mechanisms other than esophageal acidification (as defined by a pH <4). Whether this is via distension of a hypersensitive esophagus, weakly acidic reflux (pH between 4 and 7) or other components of the refluxate (e.g. bile acids) has not been determined.