Clinical significance of heterotopic gastric mucosal patch of the proximal esophagus

Table 3 Endoscopic studies reporting the associations between heterotopic gastric mucosa of the proximal esophagus and other endoscopic findings with special attention to Barrett’s esophagus n (%)

Ref.	Prevalence of HGMPE	Findings
Positive association
Avidan et al[4]	53 (1.1)	Significantly more reflux esophagitis (77 vs 50, P = 0.023), Barrett’s esophagus (34 vs 9, P < 0.001), hiatus hernia (49 vs 30, P < 0.05) and gastric ulcer (P < 0.05) On multivariate analysis, hiatus hernia, gastric ulcer and Barrett’s esophagus remained significant
Alagozlu et al[23]	68 (1)	Significantly more (P < 0.05) endoscopic Barrett’s esophagus in patients with HGM (13.2 vs 2.4) but not with reflux esophagitis (10.3 vs 9.5) Hiatus hernia and duodenal ulcer were reported in 13.2% and 10.3% respectively but no comparisons were made
1Neumann et al[24]	870 (0.18)	Significantly more Barrett’s mucosa on biopsy (9.7 vs 6.5, P < 0.001), adenocarcinoma arising from Barrett’s mucosa (3.6 vs 0.7, P < 0.01) and reflux esophagitis (41.8 vs 49.7, P < 0.001)
Yuksel et al[27]	171 (1.8)	Significantly more reflux esophagitis (25.1 vs 5.6, P < 0.001) and histologically proven Barrett’s esophagus (3.5 vs 0.5, P < 0.000) No difference in hiatus hernia
No association
Borhan-Monesh et al[3]	64 (10)	No significant difference (all P = NS) between reflux esophagitis (34.3 vs 38.1) and Barrett’s esophagus
Chong et al[8]	26 (5.6)	No significant difference (all P = NS) between esophageal, gastric and duodenal findings including Barrett’s esophagus (3.8 vs 3.7), hiatus hernia (15.4 vs 12.2) and ulcers
Akbayir et al[15]	11 (1.67)	No significant difference (all P = NS): Barrett’s esophagus (0 vs 0.9), hiatus hernia (0 vs 10), reflux esophagitis (27 vs 16) and duodenal ulcer (9 vs 7)
2Poyrazoglu et al[22]	33 (3.6)	No significant difference (all P = NS): Barrett’s esophagus (0 vs 0.8), hiatus hernia (3 vs 9.1), reflux esophagitis (36.4 vs 34.8), gastric ulcer (3 vs 3) and duodenal ulcer (6.1 vs 6.8)
Weickert et al[25]	33 (11)	Overall prevalence: hiatus hernia (n = 92, 30.7%), reflux esophagitis (n = 41, 13.7%), Barrett’s esophagus (n = 3, 1%), gastric ulcer (n = 24, 8%) and duodenal ulcer (n = 22, 7%), all P = NS
Jacobs et al[28]	33 (4.9)	Significant difference for reflux esophagitis (27.3 vs 11.4) but not for hiatus hernia (15.2 vs 12.5), Barrett’s esophagus (6.1 vs 1.1) and any gastric or duodenal ulcer (15.2 vs 6.1)

Studies included are those with more than 10 patients with heterotopic gastric mucosa of the proximal esophagus (HGMPE).

¹The study by Neumann et al was based on analysis clinic-pathologic records of patients who had undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies between January 2008 and December 2010 in private outpatient clinics and endoscopy centres in the United States;

²The study by Poyrazoglu et al compared the prevalence of other endoscopic findings between 33 patients with HGMPE with 132 matched controls without HGMPE. NS: Not significant.