eMedicine Specialties > Radiology > Gastrointestinal

Gastroesophageal Reflux: Imaging

Author: Michael AJ Sawyer, MD, Director, Videoendoscopic Surgical Institute of Oklahoma, Consulting Staff, Department of Surgery, Comanche County Memorial Hospital; Consulting Staff, Great Plains Surgical Clinic, Lawton, Oklahoma
Coauthor(s): Manish K Varma, MD, Chief of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Tripler Army Medical Center; Thomas F Murphy, MD, Chief of Abdominal Imaging Section, Department of Radiology, Tripler Army Medical Center
Contributor Information and Disclosures

Updated: Mar 6, 2008

Radiography

Findings

Plain radiography

Plain radiographic findings are not useful in evaluating patients for GERD, but they are helpful in evaluating pulmonary status and basic anatomy. Chest images may demonstrate a large hiatal hernia, but small hernias can be missed easily.

In patients with pulmonary symptoms, an infiltrate due to aspiration pneumonia may be seen. The standard radiologic workup of a patient with reflux disease does not require chest radiography.

Upper GI series

Upper GI contrast-enhanced studies are the initial radiologic procedure of choice in the workup of the patient in whom GERD is suggested.

The primary use of an upper GI in suspected reflux is to evaluate anatomy and not detect reflux as sensitivity is limited in patients with known esophagitis and normal controls can have visualized reflux. Drinking 15-30 mL of iced water can improve the sensitivity and specificity for reflux.

Barium esophagograms or swallows are helpful for identifying structural abnormalities of the esophagus and esophageal hiatus, which include esophageal rings, strictures and ulcers, and hiatal hernias.

Various techniques are used, and each has relative strengths and weaknesses in the ability to detect specific abnormalities or disease processes.

A typical barium esophagram is performed in multiple steps or phases. A high-density barium suspension is administered, and double-contrast views are used for images taken with the patient in the upright position. Prone-positioned images are typically obtained with single contrast and a lower-density barium suspension. Mucosal relief images can be made to complement these techniques.

Esophageal inflammatory and neoplastic diseases are better detected with double-contrast techniques. Conversely, single-contrast techniques are more sensitive for structural defects such as hiatal hernias and strictures or esophageal rings (Levine, 2005).

The presence of Barrett esophagus occasionally is detected as a reticular mucosal pattern. As may be expected, the more advanced the esophageal disease, the more sensitive is barium swallow at detecting it.

Early esophagitis is not well demonstrated and decreases the overall sensitivity of barium swallows, especially compared to tests such as 24-hour pH monitoring. This is why many clinicians reserve barium swallow for the evaluation of patients with GERD and symptoms that include dysphagia.

Barium swallow is not sensitive in the detection of actual reflux, except in the occasional patient who has a wide-open LES and free reflux.

Barium swallow is a very important study in the investigation and detection of postoperative complications following fundoplication. Recurrent hiatal hernia, disruption or slippage of the fundoplication, and other structural abnormalities can be identified (Mattioli, 2004).

Late postoperative dysphagia can be investigated by a combination of manometry and esophageal fluoroscopic examination. Increases in esophagogastric transit time of liquid barium and solid boluses correlate positively with the presence of postoperative dysphagia (Scheffer, 2005).

Degree of Confidence

The degree of confidence offered by plain films for the diagnosis of GERD is low. A suggested diagnosis of GERD must always be confirmed by other more sensitive and specific tests.

False Positives/Negatives

No well-described normal variants of GERD are seen on plain radiographs.

Computed Tomography

Findings

CT scanning, similar to chest radiography, is not a part of the standard radiologic workup of patients with GERD. CT scans can provide information regarding the anatomy (ie, presence and size of a hiatal hernia) but do not provide information regarding the presence or absence of reflux. CT does not need to be performed in most of patients with reflux disease.

Degree of Confidence

CT scanning offers excellent anatomic detail and is sensitive for the detection of a hiatal hernia; however, it cannot help make a diagnosis of GERD.

False Positives/Negatives

No well-described normal variants of GERD can be detected by using CT scans.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Findings

Currently, MRI has no role in the evaluation or diagnosis of GERD in patients with reflux disease.

Degree of Confidence

No role exists for MRI in the workup of this disease process.

False Positives/Negatives

No variants of GERD have been found on MRIs.

Ultrasonography

Findings

Ultrasonography is not used in the diagnosis of GERD.

False Positives/Negatives

There are no normal ultrasonographic variants of GERD.

Nuclear Imaging

Findings

Gastric-emptying studies may be worthwhile in the evaluation of patients in whom delayed gastric emptying is believed to contribute to the manifestation of GERD symptoms.

Gastroesophageal reflux scintigraphy can be performed with acidified orange juice labeled with technetium-99m sulfur colloid. Compared with fluoroscopy, this allows for a longer time of evaluation, a decreased radiation dose, and the ability to semiquantitate the amount of reflux. However, gastroesophageal reflux scintigraphy has little role in the adult patient due to limited sensitivity and the availability of other methods of evaluation.

Gastroesophageal reflux scintigraphy is much more commonly used in infants and children due to the noninvasive nature of the study and relatively low radiation dose. In infants and children the study is often performed with labeled milk. In addition to evaluating the degree of reflux, pulmonary aspiration can be detected by imaging over the lungs.

Degree of Confidence

Scintigraphic studies are neither sensitive nor specific for the diagnosis of GERD. The results should always be confirmed with another study, preferably upper GI endoscopy or 24-hour pH monitoring.

False Positives/Negatives

No normal scintigraphic variants for GERD have been described.

Angiography

Findings

Angiography has no role in the diagnosis of GERD.

More on Gastroesophageal Reflux

Overview: Gastroesophageal Reflux
Imaging: Gastroesophageal Reflux
Follow-up: Gastroesophageal Reflux
Multimedia: Gastroesophageal Reflux
References

References

  1. Aksglaede K, Funch-Jensen P, Thommesen P. Radiological demonstration of gastroesophageal reflux. Diagnostic value of barium and bread studies compared with 24-hour pH monitoring. Acta Radiol. Nov 1999;40(6):652-5. [Medline].

  2. Baker ME, Rice TW. Radiologic evaluation of the esophagus: methods and value in motility disorders and GERD. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. Jul 2001;13(3):201-25. [Medline].

  3. Buttar NS, Falk GW. Pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux and Barrett esophagus. Mayo Clin Proc. Feb 2001;76(2):226-34. [Medline].

  4. Chen MY, Ott DJ, Sinclair JW, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: correlation of esophageal pH testing and radiographic findings. Radiology. Nov 1992;185(2):483-6. [Medline].

  5. Chen YM, Ott DJ, Gelfand DW, Munitz HA. Multiphasic examination of the esophagogastric region for strictures, rings, and hiatal hernia: evaluation of the individual techniques. Gastrointest Radiol. 1985;10(4):311-6. [Medline].

  6. Creteur V, Thoeni RF, Federle MP, et al. The role of single and double-contrast radiography in the diagnosis of reflux esophagitis. Radiology. Apr 1983;147(1):71-5. [Medline].

  7. Delattre JF, Avisse C, Marcus C, Flament JB. Functional anatomy of the gastroesophageal junction. Surg Clin North Am. Feb 2000;80(1):241-60. [Medline].

  8. Gallup Organization. Heartburn Across America: A Gallup Organization National Survey. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Org;1988.

  9. Johnston BT, Troshinsky MB, Castell JA, Castell DO. Comparison of barium radiology with esophageal pH monitoring in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. Jun 1996;91(6):1181-5. [Medline].

  10. Kahrilas PJ, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, et al. Esophageal peristaltic dysfunction in peptic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. Oct 1986;91(4):897-904. [Medline].

  11. Katzka DA, Rustgi AK. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett''s esophagus. Med Clin North Am. Sep 2000;84(5):1137-61. [Medline].

  12. Levine MS, Rubesin SE. Diseases of the esophagus: diagnosis with esophagography. Radiology. Nov 2005;237(2):414-27. [Medline].

  13. Locke GR 3rd, Talley NJ, Fett SL, et al. Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology. May 1997;112(5):1448-56. [Medline].

  14. Madsen E, Aksglaede K, Jacobsen NO, et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux demonstrated by radiography. A supplement to 24-h pH monitoring. Acta Radiol. Sep 2001;42(5):521-5. [Medline].

  15. Mattioli S, Lugaresi ML, Di Simone MP, et al. The surgical treatment of the intrathoracic migration of the gastro-oesophageal junction and of short oesophagus in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. Jun 2004;25(6):1079-88. [Medline].

  16. Richter JE. Surgery for reflux disease: reflections of a gastroenterologist. N Engl J Med. Mar 19 1992;326(12):825-7. [Medline].

  17. Richter JE. Diagnostic tests for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Med Sci. Nov 2003;326(5):300-8. [Medline].

  18. Scheffer RC, Samsom M, Haverkamp A, et al. Impaired bolus transit across the esophagogastric junction in postfundoplication dysphagia. Am J Gastroenterol. Aug 2005;100(8):1677-84. [Medline].

  19. Stein HJ, DeMeester TR. Outpatient physiologic testing and surgical management of foregut motility disorders. Curr Probl Surg. Jul 1992;29(7):413-555. [Medline].

  20. Yamamoto AJ, Levine MS, Katzka DA, et al. Short-segment Barrett''s esophagus: findings on double-contrast esophagography in 20 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. May 2001;176(5):1173-8. [Medline].

  21. Younes Z, Johnson DA. Diagnostic evaluation in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Dec 1999;28(4):809-30, v. [Medline].

  22. Giannini EG, Zentilin P, Dulbecco P, Vigneri S, Scarlata P, Savarino V. Management strategy for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a comparison between empirical treatment with esomeprazole and endoscopy-oriented treatment. Am J Gastroenterol. Feb 2008;103(2):267-75. [Medline].

  23. Katz PO. Medical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease in 2007. Rev Gastroenterol Disord. 2007;7(4):193-203. [Medline].

  24. Chen CL, Robert JJ, Orr WC. Sleep symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux. J Clin Gastroenterol. Jan 2008;42(1):13-7. [Medline].

Further Reading

Keywords

hiatal hernia, heartburn, reflux regurgitation, GERD, gastric reflux, gastroesophageal reflux disease, acid reflux, bile reflux, esophageal clearance, pyrosis, esophagitis, esophageal strictures, Barrett esophagus, dysphagia

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Michael AJ Sawyer, MD, Director, Videoendoscopic Surgical Institute of Oklahoma, Consulting Staff, Department of Surgery, Comanche County Memorial Hospital; Consulting Staff, Great Plains Surgical Clinic, Lawton, Oklahoma
Michael AJ Sawyer, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Manish K Varma, MD, Chief of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Tripler Army Medical Center
Manish K Varma, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, and Radiological Society of North America
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Thomas F Murphy, MD, Chief of Abdominal Imaging Section, Department of Radiology, Tripler Army Medical Center
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Bernard D Coombs, MB, ChB, PhD, Consulting Staff, Department of Specialist Rehabilitation Services, Hutt Valley District Health Board, New Zealand
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Managing Editor

Abraham H Dachman, MD, FACR, Professor, Department of Radiology, The University of Chicago School of Medicine; Director of CT, Department of Radiology, The University of Chicago Hospitals
Abraham H Dachman, MD, FACR is a member of the following medical societies: Radiological Society of North America
Disclosure: EZ-EM, Inc. Consulting fee Consulting; iCAD, Inc. Consulting fee Consulting; Philips Medical Grant/research funds Other; iCAD, Inc. Grant/research funds Other; GE Healtcare, Inc. Honoraria Speaking and teaching

CME Editor

Robert M Krasny, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Radiology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute
Robert M Krasny, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Roentgen Ray Society and Radiological Society of North America
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Eugene C Lin, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Radiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center
Eugene C Lin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Nuclear Medicine, American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, and Society of Nuclear Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

 
 
HONcode

We subscribe to the
HONcode principles of the
Health On the Net Foundation

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright© 1994- by Medscape.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.