{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04129416773094934, 'fraction_numerical': 0.038739889314601955, 'mean_word_length': 4.465116279069767, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
P57 MOTILITY DISORDERS OF THE ESOPHAGUS - A RISK FACTOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS?


 
 
 This study aims to investigate the extent to which esophageal motility affects the development and progression of Barrett's mucosa in GERD patients.
 
 
 
 The Barret´s esophagus is becoming even more important against the background of an increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus1. The question as to why only a few patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) develop a Barrett's esophagus has not been clarified. A cohort of 315 GERD patients with and without Barrett's esophagus who received High Resolution Manometry (HRM) as part of their regular diagnostics was therefore examined in this study. The evaluation of the HRM results was based on the Chicago classification version 3.02 and was compared with endoscopic and histological findings.
 
 
 
 Out of the 315 GERD patients, 67 had a Barrett's esophagus. The two patient groups (GERD without Barrett and GERD with Barrett) did not differ in demographic data and risk profile (hiatal hernia 71.4% vs 10.2%). In pH metry, both groups achieved a comparable DeMeester score as well as a similar fraction time (49.6 vs 44.2, 13% vs 11.7%). In both groups, approximately 40% of patients showed motility disorders. The mean basal pressure and the mean DCI also showed comparable values (21.2 vs 21.3, 1189.2 vs 1249.2). However, when comparing patients within the Barrett cohort with a long and a short segment Barrett (LSB, SSB), differences in peristalsis and pressure build-up of the distal esophagus become clear. Patients with an LSB showed a lower basal pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and lower mean DCI (12.9 vs 25.0, 1230.0 vs 1389.3). In addition, they presented a hypotonic LES more frequently (54.6% vs 17.4%). Patients with LSB also showed motility disorders more often (54.6 vs 39.1), especially ineffective motility and fragmented peristalsis (18.2% vs 10.9%, 9.1% vs 2.2%).
 
 
 
 The differences in motility disorders between Barrett and non-Barrett patients already described in other publications3 could not be confirmed in this study, despite the large cohort of 315 patients. However, the differences between LSB and SSB patients suggest that esophageal motility disorders can at least influence the severity of this disease.
