Efficacy of I-scan Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease with Minimal Change

Min Sik Kim; Seok Reyol Choi; Myung Hwan Roh; Jong Hun Lee; Jin Seok Jang; Byung Geun Kim; Sang Ock Kim; Ji Sun Han; Chien Ter Hsing

doi:10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.27

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 44(1); 2011 > Article

Original Article Efficacy of I-scan Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease with Minimal Change: Min Sik Kim, Seok Reyol Choi, Myung Hwan Roh, Jong Hun Lee, Jin Seok Jang, Byung Geun Kim, Sang Ock Kim, Ji Sun Han, Chien Ter Hsing; Clinical Endoscopy 2011;44(1):27-32.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.27
Published online: September 30, 2011

Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

Correspondence: Seok Reyol Choi. Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine, 1 Dongdaeshin-dong 3-ga, Seo-gu, Busan 602-715, Korea. Tel: +82-51-240-2970, Fax: +82-51-242-5852, sychoi@dau.ac.kr

• Received: January 4, 2011 • Revised: August 20, 2011 • Accepted: August 26, 2011

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

7,550 Views
62 Download
16 Crossref
17 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of i-scans for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease, especially where only minimal change is involved.
Methods
The esophageal mucosa was inspected using an i-scan following conventional white light endoscopy. The examination with iscan was performed under tone enhancement (TE) esophagus (e) mode. Patients with subtle distal esophageal mucosal changes without definite mucosal breaks, such as blurring of Z-line (B), mucosal coarseness (C), hyperemic or purplish discoloration (D), erythema (E), ectopic gastric mucosal islet (I) and mixed type were classified as minimal change.
Results
A total of 156 patients were included. Using i-scan endoscopy, the number of minimal change was found to further increase from 94 (conventional endoscopy; 19B, 9C, 29D, 13E, 5I, 19 mixed type) to 109 (i-scan; 15B, 8C, 29D, 16E, 5I, 36 mixed type). And 14 patients who had single type by conventional endoscopy were converted to mixed type after i-scan. Therefore, 29 of 156 patients were upgraded after i-scan, they were account for 19% (p<0.0001; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.25).
Conclusions
The use of i-scan endoscopy significantly improves the identification of minimal change and helps to identify more precisely the type of minimal change.
Keywords: I-scan; Gastroesophageal reflux; Minimal change

INTRODUCTION

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is defined as abnormal reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus.1 Its prevalence is approximately 10-30% in U.S. population.2 Changes in dietary habits to more fat consumption, and decreased prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection had led to an increase in the prevalence of GERD in Asian countries including Korea.3-5

Endoscopy is a widely used diagnostic tool for reflux esophagitis detection.6,7 However, more than half of patients with GERD reveal no visible abnormality on conventional endoscopy, and it is possible that subtle distal esophageal mucosal changes form acid refluxate are underestimated by conventional endoscopy. Recently, there are various studies being published on detection of minimal change of reflux esophagitis using narrow band imaging (NBI), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), Fujinon Intelligent Chromo Endoscopy (FICE) or i-scan.8-11 Especially, i-scan technology (Pentax Co., a subsidiary of Hoya Co., Tokyo, Japan) is a newly developed digital filter-based contrast enhancement technique, which is similar to the conventional endoscopy in structure but uses software-based real-time modification of sharpness, hue and contrast of high-resolution digital image. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of i-scan endoscopy for the detection of minimal change in GERD, and to find whether i-scan is helpful to overcome limitations of the conventional endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

The study was performed in patients who received esophagogastroscopy between September 2009 and October 2010 at Dong-A University Medical Center for medical checkup or regular follow up, or for symptoms of heartburn and acid regurgitation suggesting GERD. Patients with upper gastrointestinal structural disease such as peptic ulcer or tumor, or systemic disease affecting esophageal motility were excluded from the study. Subjects' information was analyzed retrospectively based on their medical records.

Methods

In each study patient, the gastroesophageal junction was first inspected using standard white light endoscopy alone without i-scan. And then, the i-scan mode was activated by pressing the appropriate button at the endoscope control head and the gastroesophageal junction was re-inspected. The examination with i-scan was performed under tone enhancement (TE) esophagus (e) mode, which were able to characterize the details of the gastroesophageal junction. All endoscopic examination was performed by two expert endoscopists with more than 1,000 cases of experience, who were highly familiar with Pentax i-scan.

Patients with mucosal breaks identified by endoscopy were classified as erosive esophagitis based on the Los Angeles (LA) classification (grade A, one or more mucosal breaks no longer than 5 mm, not bridging the tops of mucosal folds; grade B, one or more mucosal breaks longer than 5 mm not bridging the tops of mucosal folds; grade C, one or more mucosal breaks bridging the tops of mucosal folds involving <75% of the circumference are; grade D, one or more mucosal breaks bridging the tops of mucosal folds involving >75% of the circumference).12 Patients with no visible mucosal break on endoscopy were classified as non-erosive reflux disease (NERD). Of NERD patients, patients with subtle distal esophageal mucosal changes, such as blurring of Z-line (B), mucosal coarseness (C), hyperemic or purplish discoloration (D), erythema (E), ectopic gastric mucosal islet (I), and mixed type were classified as minimal change.13,14

Statistical analysis

All data are given as mean±standard deviation. Weighted kappa value and χ² test were performed in order to assess the influence of the use of the i-scan compared with conventional endoscopy on the number of detected lesion. According to statistical conventions, the confidence level for this test was chosen as alpha=5%. The interobserver agreements for the i-scan findings between investigators were determined using kappa statistics. The strength of interobserver agreement was categorized according to the following definitions: 0.0-0.20, slight; 0.21-0.40, fair; 0.41-0.60, moderate; 0.61-0.80, good; 0.81-1.00, almost perfect. A p-value was considered significant if it was <0.05. The statistical software program (SAS, version 9.1; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for all data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients with mean age of 57.5±13.4 years were included in the study. The male was 85 patients, the female was 71 patients. A total of 96 (62%) patients had typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. One hundred three were inpatients, 53 were outpatients. One hundred sixteen patients had underlying medical diseases and 53 patients had medication history (Table 1).

With conventional endoscopy, 41 patients demonstrated mucosal breaks consistent with erosive esophagitis. According to the LA classification, 36 patients had grade A, 4 patients had grade B, and 1 patient had grade C esophagitis. And 94 patients were diagnosed as GERD with minimal change, including B (n=19), C (n=9), D (n=29), E (n=13), I (n=5), B+C (n=1), B+D (n=5), B+E (n=3), B+I (n=1), C+D (n=5), C+E (n=1), and D+E (n=3). After applying i-scan endoscopy, there was no improvement in detection of erosive esophagitis comparing conventional endoscopy (LA grade A, n=36; grade B, n=4; grade C, n=1). But, the number of minimal change was found to further increase from 94 to 109, including B (n=15), C (n=8), D (n=29), E (n=16), I (n=5), B+C (n=3), B+D (n=5), B+E (n=7), B+I (n=3), C+D (n=6), C+E (n=3), D+E (n=6), and E+I (n=3) (κ=0.84, p<0.0001) (Tables 2, 3, Figs. 1, 2). By using i-scan endoscopy, 15 patients who were diagnosed as normal by conventional endoscopy were additionally diagnosed as minimal change, and 14 patients who had single types of minimal change by conventional endoscopy were converted to mixed types of minimal change. So, 29 of 156 patients were upgraded after i-scan tone enhancement (TE) esophagus (e) mode, they were account for 19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.25) (Table 4). And interobserver agreement was very high, kappa value 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.92) (Table 3).

Even restricted to 96 patients showing typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, the number of minimal change was found to further significantly increase from 60 to 69 after applying i-scan endoscopy. Nine patients were upgraded from initially normal in conventional endoscopy to minimal change after i-scan TE esophagus (e) mode, they were account for 9.4% (κ=0.80, p<0.0001) (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

PENTAX i-scan is a next generation image enhancement technology, which is also called virtual chromoendoscopy or endoscopic Photoshop®. Through the application of cutting edge computer-based enhancement filters, dynamic multiple modes reveal the hidden colors, vascularity, pit patterns, topography and architecture of possible problematic tissue, all at the mere touch of a button. This consists of three types of algorithms: surface enhancement (SE), contrast enhancement (CE), and tone enhancement (TE). SE enhances light-dark contrast by obtaining luminance intensity data for each pixel and applying an algorithm that allows detailed observation of a mucosal surface structure. CE digitally adds blue color in relatively dark areas, by obtaining luminance intensity data for each pixel and applying an algorithm that allows detailed observation of subtle irregularities around the surface. Lastly, tone enhancement makes color tone and structure more evident, which may be used to assess the necessity of more detailed test by means of dye spraying, magnified observation, or biopsy. TE is classified into 6 modes, which are TE pattern (p), TE vessel (v), TE barrett (b), TE esophagus (e), TE gastric (g), and TE colon (c). TE esophagus (e) mode was used for this study. This mode emphasizes relatively dark red color and white part of the mucosa in the image by digitally fading the red color, which makes it suitable for esophagus by emphasizing the vessel structure and the subtle mucosal color changes. For this reason, we can assume that 'erythema (E)' subtype would be commonly detected under TE esophagus (e) mode. In result, among additionally detected 29 patients, 15 patients were demonstrated erythema (E) subtype.

About 60% patients with GERD reveal no visible abnormality on conventional endoscopy, so it is difficult to diagnose GERD under the standard white light endoscopy.15 Various studies on evolved endoscopic techniques to improve the detection rate of GERD are published in the recent few years, one of which reported that NBI (Olympus Co., Tokyo, Japan) might be more effective for detecting NERD than conventional endoscopy. Sharma et al.10 demonstrated that reflux esophagitis group had significantly more intraepithelial papillary loops, dilatation, tortuosity, microerosion and vascularity of squamocolumnar junction than control group. In 2009, Hoffman et al.11 reported that chromoendoscopy with Lugol's solution in conjunction with HD endoscopy significantly improved the detection rate of erosive reflux disease, and i-scan endoscopy also was able to detect indistinct blood vessels and mucous structures clearly.

Despite the promising results of previous studies, there was no report to improve the detection rate of GERD especially where only minimal change is involved. Minimal change is a significant clinical problem as it is difficult to diagnose but nevertheless need adequate therapy. This study found that detection rate of minimal changes was significantly increased by 19% using i-scan. Furthermore, in NERD patient with typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, 9.6% patients was more precisely diagnosed by i-scan. There is a considerable discrepancy between endoscopic abilities to detect even minute lesions and their clinical relevance. But, i-scan endoscopy showed good interobserver agreement with kappa value of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.92).

In summary, i-scan endoscopy is simple and useful for diagnosis of minimal change with GERD. I-scan could be appealing for the endoscopist, because it is easy, safer, rapid and more accurate method for a detection of the minimal change with GERD. And it may also assist in a rational use of proton pump inhibitor therapy and facilitate the assessment of response to antireflux therapies. However, i-scan leads to visibility of new mucosal detail that is of little clinical relevance and has to be evaluated in further studies.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Dong-A University research fund.

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. DeVault KR, Castell DO. American College of Gastroenterology. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:190–200. 15654800.Article PubMed
2. Locke GR 3rd, Talley NJ, Fett SL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ 3rd. Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology 1997;112:1448–1456. 9136821.Article PubMed
3. Kim HY, Kim N, Kim SM, et al. Clinical spectrum and risk factors of erosive and non-erosive GERD in health check-up subjects. Korean J Med 2006;71:491–500.
4. Youn YH, Kang YW, Ahn SH, Park SK. Prevalence alteration of reflux esophagitis in recent years. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 2001;23:144–148.
5. Jeon SG, Sohn CI, Kim JE, et al. Prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in routine check-up subjects. Korean J Med 2000;58:145–151.
6. Rhee PI. Evidence based guideline for diagnosis and treatment: diagnostic guideline for GERD. Korean J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2005;11:5–12.
7. Jones R. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1995;211:35–38. 8545629.Article PubMed
8. Kim WJ, Cho JY, Jeong SW, et al. Comparison of autofluorescence imaging endoscopic findings with pathologic findings after endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms. Gut Liver 2008;2:186–192. 20485645.Article PubMed PMC
9. Chaiteerakij R, Rerknimitr R, Kullavanijaya P. Role of digital chromoendoscopy in detecting minimal change esophageal reflux disease. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2010;2:121–129. 21160727.Article PubMed PMC
10. Sharma P, Wani S, Bansal A, et al. A feasibility trial of narrow band imaging endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2007;133:454–464. 17681166.Article PubMed
11. Hoffman A, Basting N, Goetz M, et al. High-definition endoscopy with i-Scan and Lugol's solution for more precise detection of mucosal breaks in patients with reflux symptoms. Endoscopy 2009;41:107–112. 19214887.Article PubMed
12. Lundell LR, Dent J, Bennett JR, et al. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut 1999;45:172–180. 10403727.Article PubMed PMC
13. Hongo M. Minimal changes in reflux esophagitis: red ones and white ones. J Gastroenterol 2006;41:95–99. 16568367.Article PubMed
14. Nakamura T, Shirakawa K, Masuyama H, Sugaya H, Hiraishi H, Terano A. Minimal change oesophagitis: a disease with characteristic differences to erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;21(Suppl 2):19–26. 15943842.Article
15. Fass R, Ofman JJ. Gastroesophageal reflux disease--should we adopt a new conceptual framework? Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1901–1909. 12190152.Article PubMed

Fig. 1

Endoscopic findings. Comparison between conventional and i-scan tone enhancement (TE) esophagus (e) method in erythema of minimal change. (A) In conventional endoscopic examination, normal mucosa of esophagus was shown. (B) Erythema of minimal change was detected in i-scan endoscopic examination.

Fig. 2

Endoscopic findings. Comparison between conventional and i-scan tone enhancement (TE) esophagus (e) method in mixed type of minimal change. (A) Only blurring of minimal change was shown in conventional endoscopic examination. (B) In i-scan endoscopic examination, ectopic gastric mucosal islet was more detected.

Table 1

Patients Characteristics

SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension; MI, myocardial infarction; H2B, H2 blocker; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

^a)Colon cancer, liver cirrhosis, stroke, chronic renal failure; ^b)Teperone (Selbex®), Benexate betadex (Ulgut®), Ecabet sodium (Gastrex ®).

Table 2

Result of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in Minimal Change

B, blurring of Z-line; C, mucosal coarseness; D, hyperemic or purplish discoloration; E, erythema; I, ectopic gastric mucosal islet; M, minimal; N, normal.

Table 3

Results of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in All Patients

N, normal; M, minimal; ASE, adjusted standard error; CI, confidence interval.

^a)Los Angeles (LA) classification of erosive esophagitis.

Table 4

Comparision between I-scan and Conventional Endoscopic Examination

CI, confidence interval.

Table 5

Results of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in Symptomatic Patient

N, normal; M, minimal; ASE, adjusted standard error; CI, confidence interval.

^a)Los Angeles (LA) classification of erosive esophagitis.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Endoscopic Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Priyadarshini Loganathan, Mahesh Gajendran, Abhilash Perisetti, Hemant Goyal, Rupinder Mann, Randy Wright, Shreyas Saligram, Nirav Thosani, Chandraprakash Umapathy
Medicina.2024; 60(7): 1120. CrossRef
Usefulness of Endoscopy for the Detection and Diagnosis of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders and Diseases Relating to Abnormal Esophageal Motility
Shiko Kuribayashi, Hiroko Hosaka, Toshio Uraoka
Diagnostics.2023; 13(4): 695. CrossRef
Role of endoscopy in gastroesophageal reflux disease
Daniel Martin Simadibrata, Elvira Lesmana, Ronnie Fass
Clinical Endoscopy.2023; 56(6): 681. CrossRef
The role of endoscopy in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease
Shiko Kuribayashi, Hiroko Hosaka, Fumihiko Nakamura, Ko Nakata, Keigo Sato, Yuki Itoi, Yu Hashimoto, Kengo Kasuga, Hirohito Tanaka, Toshio Uraoka
DEN Open.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Evaluation of Minimal Change Lesions Using Linked Color Imaging in Patients With Nonerosive Reflux Esophagitis
Ni-Na Zhang, Yi-Min Ma, Qi Sun, Liang-Liang Shi, Yin Xie, Xiao-Ping Zou
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2022; 56(5): 405. CrossRef
Reflux Finding Score Using HD Video Chromoendoscopy: A Diagnostic Adjunct in Suspected Laryngopharyngeal Reflux?
Nurhamizah Mahmud Mohayuddin, Mawaddah Azman, Aneeza Khairiyah Wan Hamizan, Farah Dayana Zahedi, Thomas Leigh Carroll, Marina Mat Baki
Journal of Voice.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Narrowed-spectrum Technologies in Endoscopic Imaging of The Upper Gastrointestinal Tract
Amrit K. Kamboj, Allon Kahn, Cadman L. Leggett
Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2021; 23(1): 19. CrossRef
Image-enhanced endoscopy is specific for the diagnosis of non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease
Neil D. Parikh, Artur V. Viana, Saloni Shah, Loren Laine
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.2018; 53(3): 260. CrossRef
Ambulatory 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring and high resolution endoscopy distinguish patients with non-erosive reflux disease from those with functional heartburn
Chuanlian Chu, Quanlin Du, Changqing Li, Linlu Zhang, Xiaoyan Zhou, Fang Zuo, Yanmin Zhang, Fang Li, Guofeng Xie, Yanqing Li, John Green
PLOS ONE.2017; 12(4): e0175263. CrossRef
High-definition endoscopy withiScan and Lugol's solution for the detection of inflammation in patients with nonerosive reflux disease: histologic evaluation in comparison with a control group
J. W. Rey, N. Deris, J. U. Marquardt, T. Thomaidis, M. Moehler, J. M. Kittner, M. Nguyen-Tat, S. Dümcke, A. Tresch, S. Biesterfeld, M. Goetz, J. Mudter, M. F. Neurath, P. R. Galle, R. Kiesslich, A. Hoffman
Diseases of the Esophagus.2016; 29(2): 185. CrossRef
Identifying Minimal Changes in Nonerosive Reflux Disease
Scott L. Gabbard, Ronnie Fass, Carla Maradey-Romero, Rachel Gingold Belfer, Ram Dickman
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2016; 50(1): 11. CrossRef
Minimal Change Esophagitis
Han Seung Ryu, Suck Chei Choi
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 67(1): 4. CrossRef
Advanced Imaging Technology Other than Narrow Band Imaging
Jun-Hyung Cho
Clinical Endoscopy.2015; 48(6): 503. CrossRef
Present and future perspectives of virtual chromoendoscopy with i‐scan and optical enhancement technology
Helmut Neumann, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro, C. Mel Wilcox, Klaus Mönkemüller
Digestive Endoscopy.2014; 26(S1): 43. CrossRef
Screening for Precancerous Lesions of Upper Gastrointestinal Tract: From the Endoscopists' Viewpoint
Chen-Shuan Chung, Hsiu-Po Wang
Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2013; 2013: 1. CrossRef
Red Flag Imaging Techniques in Barrett's Esophagus
Payal Saxena, Marcia Irene Canto
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America.2013; 23(3): 535. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Efficacy of I-scan Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease with Minimal Change

Clin Endosc. 2011;44(1):27-32. Published online September 30, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.27

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Efficacy of I-scan Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease with Minimal Change

Fig. 1 Endoscopic findings. Comparison between conventional and i-scan tone enhancement (TE) esophagus (e) method in erythema of minimal change. (A) In conventional endoscopic examination, normal mucosa of esophagus was shown. (B) Erythema of minimal change was detected in i-scan endoscopic examination.

Fig. 2 Endoscopic findings. Comparison between conventional and i-scan tone enhancement (TE) esophagus (e) method in mixed type of minimal change. (A) Only blurring of minimal change was shown in conventional endoscopic examination. (B) In i-scan endoscopic examination, ectopic gastric mucosal islet was more detected.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Efficacy of I-scan Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease with Minimal Change

Table 1

Patients Characteristics

SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension; MI, myocardial infarction; H2B, H2 blocker; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

^a)Colon cancer, liver cirrhosis, stroke, chronic renal failure; ^b)Teperone (Selbex®), Benexate betadex (Ulgut®), Ecabet sodium (Gastrex ®).

Table 2

Result of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in Minimal Change

B, blurring of Z-line; C, mucosal coarseness; D, hyperemic or purplish discoloration; E, erythema; I, ectopic gastric mucosal islet; M, minimal; N, normal.

Table 3

Results of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in All Patients

N, normal; M, minimal; ASE, adjusted standard error; CI, confidence interval.

^a)Los Angeles (LA) classification of erosive esophagitis.

Table 4

Comparision between I-scan and Conventional Endoscopic Examination

CI, confidence interval.

Table 5

Results of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in Symptomatic Patient

N, normal; M, minimal; ASE, adjusted standard error; CI, confidence interval.

^a)Los Angeles (LA) classification of erosive esophagitis.

Table 1 Patients Characteristics

SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension; MI, myocardial infarction; H2B, H2 blocker; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

^a)Colon cancer, liver cirrhosis, stroke, chronic renal failure; ^b)Teperone (Selbex®), Benexate betadex (Ulgut®), Ecabet sodium (Gastrex ®).

Table 2 Result of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in Minimal Change

B, blurring of Z-line; C, mucosal coarseness; D, hyperemic or purplish discoloration; E, erythema; I, ectopic gastric mucosal islet; M, minimal; N, normal.

Table 3 Results of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in All Patients

N, normal; M, minimal; ASE, adjusted standard error; CI, confidence interval.

^a)Los Angeles (LA) classification of erosive esophagitis.

Table 4 Comparision between I-scan and Conventional Endoscopic Examination

CI, confidence interval.

Table 5 Results of Conventional and I-scan Endoscopic Examination in Symptomatic Patient