Background
Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is highly prevalent in lung transplantation, the pathophysiology of GERD in these patients is unknown. We hypothesize that the pathophysiology of GERD after lung transplantation differs from that of a control population, and that the 30-d morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) are equivalent in both populations.
Methods
We retrospectively compared the pathophysiology of GERD and the 30-d morbidity and mortality of 29 consecutive lung transplant patients with 23 consecutive patients without lung transplantation (control group), all of whom had LARS for GERD between November 2008 and May 2010.
Results
Both groups had a similar prevalence of endoscopic esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus, comparable manometric profiles, and similar prevalence of abnormal peristalsis. However, hiatal hernia was more common in controls than in lung transplant patients (57% versus 24%; P = 0.04). Lung transplant patients had a higher prevalence and severity of proximal GERD (65% versus 33%; P = 0.04). The 30-d morbidity and mortality following LARS were similar in both groups regardless of the higher surgical risk of lung transplants (median ASA class: 3 versus 2 for controls, P < 0.001).
Conclusions
These results show that despite similar manometric profiles, lung transplant patients are more prone to proximal reflux than the general population with GERD; the prevalence of endoscopic esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus is the same in both groups of patients; a hiatal hernia is uncommon after lung transplantation; and the morbidity and mortality of LARS are the same for lung transplant patients as the general population with GERD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.