Dataset Information

Visceral fat obesity is the key risk factor for the development of reflux erosive esophagitis in 40-69-years subjects.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Visceral fat obesity can be defined quantitatively by abdominal computed tomography, however, the usefulness of measuring visceral fat area to assess the etiology of gastrointestinal reflux disease has not been fully elucidated.

Methods

A total of 433 healthy subjects aged 40-69 years (234 men, 199 women) were included in the study. The relationship between obesity-related factors (total fat area, visceral fat area, subcutaneous fat area, waist circumference, and body mass index) and the incidence of reflux erosive esophagitis was investigated. Lifestyle factors and stomach conditions relevant to the onset of erosive esophagitis were also analyzed.

Results

The prevalence of reflux erosive esophagitis was 27.2% (118/433; 106 men, 12 women). Visceral fat area was higher in subjects with erosive esophagitis than in those without (116.6 cm² vs. 64.9 cm², respectively). The incidence of erosive esophagitis was higher in subjects with visceral fat obesity (visceral fat area ≥ 100 cm²) than in those without (61.2% vs. 12.8%, respectively). Visceral fat obesity had the highest odds ratio (OR) among obesity-related factors. Multivariate analysis showed that visceral fat area was associated with the incidence of erosive esophagitis (OR = 2.18), indicating that it is an independent risk factor for erosive esophagitis. In addition, daily alcohol intake (OR = 1.54), gastric atrophy open type (OR = 0.29), and never-smoking history (OR = 0.49) were also independently associated with the development of erosive esophagitis.

Conclusions

Visceral fat obesity is the key risk factor for the development of reflux erosive esophagitis in subjects aged 40-69 years.

SUBMITTER: Ohashi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8387261 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the high prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), its risk factors are still a subject of controversy. This is probably due to inadequate distinction between reflux esophagitis (RE) and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), and is also due to inadequate evaluation of adjacent stomach. Our aim is therefore to define background factors of RE and NERD independently, based on the evaluation of Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric atrophy.MethodsWe analyzed 10,837 healthy Japanese subjects (6,332 men and 4,505 women, aged 20-87 years) who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. RE was diagnosed as the presence of mucosal break, and NERD was diagnosed as the presence of heartburn and/or acid regurgitation in RE-free subjects. Using GERD-free subjects as control, background factors for RE and NERD were separately analyzed using logistic regression to evaluate standardized coefficients (SC), odds ratio (OR), and p-value.ResultsOf the 10,837 study subjects, we diagnosed 733 (6.8%) as RE and 1,722 (15.9%) as NERD. For RE, male gender (SC = 0.557, OR = 1.75), HP non-infection (SC = 0.552, OR = 1.74), higher pepsinogen I/II ratio (SC = 0.496, OR = 1.64), higher BMI (SC = 0.464, OR = 1.60), alcohol drinking (SC = 0.161, OR = 1.17), older age (SC = 0.148, OR = 1.16), and smoking (SC = 0.129, OR = 1.14) are positively correlated factors. For NERD, HP infection (SC = 0.106, OR = 1.11), female gender (SC = 0.099, OR = 1.10), younger age (SC = 0.099, OR = 1.10), higher pepsinogen I/II ratio (SC = 0.099, OR = 1.10), smoking (SC = 0.080, OR = 1.08), higher BMI (SC = 0.078, OR = 1.08), and alcohol drinking (SC = 0.076, OR = 1.08) are positively correlated factors. Prevalence of RE in subjects with chronic HP infection and successful HP eradication denotes significant difference (2.3% and 8.8%; p<0.0001), whereas that of NERD shows no difference (18.2% and 20.8%; p = 0.064).ConclusionsSignificantly associated factors of NERD are considerably different from those of RE, indicating that these two disorders are pathophysiologically distinct. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori may have disadvantageous effects on RE but not on NERD.

Project description:Background and study aims ?Non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) includes minimal change esophagitis (MCE) and no endoscopic abnormalities. However, for most endoscopists, it is difficult to detect MCE with conventional white-light endoscopy (WLE). Linked color imaging (LCI) technology is the most recently developed image-enhancing technology and improves detection and differentiation of subtle mucosal changes using a color contrast method. This study assessed the efficacy of WLE combined with LCI for diagnosing MCE compared with WLE. Patients and methods ?Between February and May 2017, 44 NERD patients and 40 healthy subjects were enrolled in our study. First, the distal esophagus was examined using WLE followed by LCI. Second, three experienced endoscopists observed all the patients' white-light (WL) images and corresponding images of WL and LCI and then recorded presence or absence of minimal change esophagitis (MCE?+/-). The proportion of minimal change between the two groups was then compared. Third, five blinded endoscopists with different levels of endoscopic experience assessed whether MCE was present. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver agreement were described using the kappa value. Results ?The proportion of MCE in the NERD group (70.8?%, 35/48) was higher than that in the control group (22.5?%, 9/40, P ?<?0.001) when diagnosed by the three experienced endoscopists. Detection rates for MCE using WLE combined with LCI were higher than those using WLE (43/88, 48.9?% vs. 29/88, 33.0?%, P ?<?0.001). With WLE combined with LCI, intraobserver reproducibility signi?cantly improved, indicating that the combined approach can improve interobserver agreement compared with using WLE alone. Conclusions ?Endoscopic diagnosis of MCE using WLE combined with LCI images is effective. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver agreement in MCE can be improved when LCI is applied with conventional imaging (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03068572).