Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 22, No. 2, 2004
Issue release date: 2004
Dig Dis 2004;22:221–227

Minimal Change Esophagitis: Prospective Comparison of Endoscopic and Histological Markers between Patients with Non-Erosive Reflux Disease and Normal Controls Using Magnifying Endoscopy

Kiesslich R. · Kanzler S. · Vieth M. · Moehler M. · Neidig J. · Thanka Nadar B.J. · Schilling D. · Burg J. · Nafe B. · Neurath M.F. · Galle P.R.
a1st Medical Clinic, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz; bInstitute of Pathology, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg; cMedical Clinic C, Klinikum Ludwigshafen; dInstitute of Pathology and eInstitute of Statistics, JohannesGutenberg University Mainz, Germany

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Introduction: More than half the patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) show no endoscopic abnormality or minimal change esophagitis (non-erosive reflux disease, NERD). We investigated the value of endoscopic and histological markers for the prediction of NERD before and after treatment with 20 mg esomeprazole. Methods: Between July and October 2002, consecutive patients presenting for upper endoscopy were stratified into GERD and non-reflux patients (control group) with the help of a questionnaire. The endoscopist was blind to the presence of reflux symptoms. Using magnifying endoscopes minimal change esophagitis was defined by the presence of vascular injection or vascular spots above the Z-line, villous mucosal surface and islands of squamous cell epithelium below the Z-line. Targeted and random biopsies were taken below and above the Z-line. Patients with endoscopically visible classical signs of esophagitis (Los Angeles A–D) or histologically proven Barrett’s esophagus were not further investigated in the study (drop out). The esophageal specimens were histologically evaluated for erosions, infiltration with leukocytes, hyperplasia of basal cells and length of papillae. Patients with NERD were treated with 20 mg esomeprazole/day for 4 weeks and reevaluated by endoscopy as described before. Results: 39 patients with heartburn and 39 patients without reflux symptoms (controls) were finally included in the analysis (per protocol). Patients with NERD significantly (p = 0.005) more often showed endoscopic signs of minimal change esophagitis (27/39) than the control group (8/39). An increased length of papillae (14/39 versus 2/39; p = 0.005) and basal cell hyperplasia (17/39 versus 4/39; p = 0.009) were significantly more common in the heartburn group. After treatment with esomeprazole, no significant endoscopic or histological differences between the NERD and control group could be observed. Conclusions: Minimal change esophagitis can be seen with high resolution magnifying endoscopy. By combining endoscopic and histological markers NERD can be predicted with a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 74%. Treatment with esomeprazole for 4 weeks reverses the slight alterations to normal.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Dent J, Brun J, Fendrick M, et al: An evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management – The Genval workshop report. Gut 1999;44:1–16.

    External Resources

  2. Martinez SD, Malagon IB, Garewal HS, et al: Non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) – Acid reflux and symptom patterns. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;15:537–545.

    External Resources

  3. Kiesslich R, Jung M: Magnification endoscopy: Does it improve mucosal surface analysis for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal neoplasias? Endoscopy 2002;34:819–822.
  4. Kiesslich R, Fritsch J, Holtmann M, et al: Methylene blue-aided chromoendoscopy for the detection of intraepithelial neoplasia and colon cancer in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2003;124:880–888.
  5. Endo T, Awakawa T, Takahashi H, et al: Classification of Barrett’s epithelium by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:641–647.
  6. Vieth M, Haringsma J, Delarive J, et al: Red streaks in the esophagus in patients with reflux disease: Is there a histomorphological correlate? Scand J Gastroenterol 2001;36:1123–1127.

    External Resources

  7. Stolte M, Vieth M, Schmitz JM, et al: Effects of long-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors in gastro-esophageal reflux disease on the histological findings in the lower esophagus. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000;35:1125–1130.
  8. Vieth M, Stolte M: Can an endoscopically negative reflux disease be histologically diagnosed? Z Gastroenterol 2000;38:817–818.
  9. Ismail-Beigi F, Horton PF, Pope CE: Histological consequences of gastroesophageal reflux in man. Gastroenterology 1970;58:163–174.
  10. Vieth M, Leodolter A, Kulig M, et al: The effects of esomeprazole on the squamous epithelium of the esophagus: An analysis based an the ProGERD study initiative (abstract). Gastroenterology 2002;122:1298.
  11. Dimenas E: Methodologic aspects of evaluation of quality of life in upper gastrointestinal disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1993;28:18–21.
  12. Fass R, Fennerty B, Vakil N: Nonerosive reflux disease – Current concepts and dilemmas. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:303–314.
  13. Funch-Jensen P, Kock K, Christensen LA, et al: Microscopic appearance of the esophageal mucosa in a consecutive series of patients submitted to upper endoscopy. Correlation with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and macroscopic findings. Scand J Gastroenterol 1986;21:65–69.
  14. Schindlbeck NE, Weibecke B, Klauser AG, et al: Diagnostic value of histology in non-erosive gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Gut 1996;39:151–154.
  15. Calabrese C, Fabbri A, Bortolotti M, et al: Dilated intercellular spaces as a marker of oesophageal damage: Comparative results in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with or without bile reflux. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;1:525–532.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50