Predicting reflux symptom recurrence: The impact of gastroesophageal junction indicators and body mass index among outpatients

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the prediction model in predicting reflux symptom recurrence among outpatients with reflux esophagitis (RE). A total of 261 outpatients diagnosed with RE complicated by anatomical alterations at the gastroesophageal junction and reflux symptoms were included in the study. Through follow-up, patients were divided into a General group (149 cases) and a Recurrent group (112 cases). Receiver operating characteristic curves of the related factors and prediction model were analyzed to compare the efficacy of each element in predicting reflux recurrence. A prediction model was constructed for predicting reflux recurrence using the axial length of the hiatal hernia (HH), the diameter of the esophageal hiatus, Hill classification, and body mass index (BMI) as risk factors. The cutoff values of the aforementioned factors for predicting reflux recurrence were: an axial length of HH >2 cm, esophageal hiatus diameter ≥3 cm, Hill grade >III, and BMI >25.1 kg/m 2 . The multivariate prediction model constructed using the aforementioned four indicators together with chronic atrophic gastritis and Helicobacter pylori infection had the area under the curve of 0.801 (95% confidence interval: 0.748-0.854), and the cutoff value of 46.8 had a sensitivity and specificity of 71.4% and 75.8%, respectively. The predictive model in the present study can be used for the primary assessment of reflux recurrence in patients with RE.

Therapeutic effect of Wendan Decoction combined with mosapride on gastroesophageal reflux disease after esophageal cancer surgery

“…The sample size was calculated based on the primary outcomes. According to previous studies[ 9 ], the mean RDQ score of patients with GERD after esophageal cancer surgery is approximately 25 points, with a standard deviation of approximately 10 points. Assuming a significance level of 0.05, power of 0.80, and mean difference of 5 points between the two groups, the required sample size was 34 patients per group.…”