Table 4.
Comparisons of Reflux Patterns and High-resolution Manometry Metrics Between Proton Pump Inhibitor Effective and No Effective Group
| PPI responders (n = 67) | PPI non-responders (n = 16) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EE patients | 30 (44.8%) | 6 (37.5%) | 0.598 |
| AET% | 4.90 (1.30, 10.10) | 1.90 (0.40, 4.70) | 0.015 |
| Total reflux episodes | 55.66 ± 21.37 | 59.36 ± 41.60 | 0.780 |
| EGJ-CI (mmHg·cm) | 24.35 (16.99, 33.15) | 25.78 (14.77, 44.84) | 0.627 |
| EGJP-insp (mmHg) | 16 (11, 23) | 15 (12, 24) | 0.804 |
| EGJP-exp (mmHg) | 9 (3, 15) | 7 (4, 18) | 0.992 |
| Median IRP (mmHg) | 8.84 ± 4.77 | 10.68 ± 6.11 | 0.279 |
| DCI (mmHg·cm·sec) | 774.47 (368.01, 1568.53) | 908.33 (682.28, 1045.10) | 0.820 |
PPI, proton pump inhibitor; EE, erosive esophagitis; AET%, percentage of acid exposure time; EGJ-CI, esophagogastric junction contractile integral; EGJP-insp, inspiratory EGJ pressure; EGJP-exp, expiratory EGJ pressure; IRP, integrated relaxation pressure; DCI, distal contractile integral.
Total reflux episodes and median IRP were expressed as median ± SD, the other values were expressed as medians (interquartile range).