A substantial incidence of silent short segment endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia in an adult Japanese primary care practice

Table 1 Demographic and endoscopic characteristics of 832 patients with or without short segment ESEM

		Total (%) (n = 832)	Short segment ESEM(+) (%)(n = 184)	ESEM(-) (%)(n = 648)	P value
Age (yr), mean ± SD		67.6 ± 12.9	68.3 ± 12.2	67.4 ± 13.0	0.41
Age (yr), decennium	80-	139 (16.7)	31 (16.8)	108 (16.7)	0.92
	70-79	266 (32.0)	63 (34.2)	203 (31.3)
	60-69	249 (29.9)	51 (27.7)	198 (30.6)
	50-59	97 (11.7)	21 (11.4)	76 (11.7)
	40-49	52 (6.2)	13 (7.2)	39 (6.0)
	-39	29 (3.5)	5 (2.7)	24 (3.7)
Age (yr), dichotomy	70-	405 (48.7)	94 (51.1)	311 (48.0)	0.46
	-69	427 (51.3)	90 (48.9)	337 (52.0)
Gender	Male	339 (40.7)	88 (47.8)	251 (38.7)	0.03
	Female	493 (59.3)	96 (52.2)	397 (61.3)
Antacid therapy	(+)	196 (23.6)	52 (28.3)	144 (22.2)	0.09
	(-)	636 (76.4)	132 (71.7)	504 (77.8)
GERD-suggested symptoms	(+)	305 (36.7)	68 (37.0)	237 (36.6)	0.92
	(-)	527 (63.3)	116 (63.0)	411 (63.4)
Esophagitis	(+)	45 (5.4)	10 (5.4)	35 (5.4)	0.73
	(-)	787 (94.6)	174 (94.6)	613 (94.6)
Hiatus hernia	(+)	621 (74.6)	182 (98.9)	439 (67.7)	9.9 × 10-18
	(-)	211 (25.4)	2 (1.1)	209 (32.3)

ESEM: Endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia; GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Table 2 Logistic regression analysis of association between short segment ESEM and background factors

		Odds ratio	95% Confidence interval	P value
Age		1.01	0.99-1.02	0.28
Gender	Female	1	-
	Male	1.45	1.02-2.06	0.04
Antacid therapy	(-)	1	-
	(+)	1.23	0.83-1.84	0.3
GERD-suggested symptoms	(-)	1	-
	(+)	1.08	0.75-1.57	0.67
Esophagitis	(-)	1	-
	(+)	0.74	0.35-1.58	0.44
Hiatus hernia	(-)	1	-
	(+)	43.3	10.6-176.1	1.5 × 10-7

GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; ESEM: Endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia.