Assessment of the risk factors of duodenogastric reflux in relation to different dietary habits in a Chinese population of the Zhangjiakou area

Zhao  Peng; Rui Wang; Na Wu; Huiru  Gao; Huibin  Gao; Duo Li

doi:10.29219/fnr.v67.9385

Zhao Peng Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China
Rui Wang Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China
Na Wu Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China
Huiru Gao Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China
Huibin Gao Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China
Duo Li The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v67.9385

Keywords: Duodenogastric reflux, dietary composition, diet, gastrointestinal hormones, risk factors

Abstract

Objective: To explore the risk factors of duodenogastric reflux (DGR) in relation to different dietary habits.

Methods: A total of 106 patients with symptoms of DGR who underwent electronic gastroscopy from June 2019 to June 2020 were selected and divided into the DGR group (n = 33) and the non-DGR group (n = 73) according to the diagnosis of bile reflux. Questionnaires were used to collect the basic information and dietary habits of the patients, including age, gender, body mass index, place of residence, comorbidities, dietary composition, salt intake, smoking and drinking consumption. The total bile acid (TBA) and cholesterol (CHO) of the gastric juice were measured using a fully automated biochemical analyser, with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay used for the serum cholecystokinin, gastrin and gastrin levels. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to predict the attendant DGR risk factors.

Results: There was no significant difference in age or gender between the DGR and the non-DGR groups (P > 0.05). The proportion of patients living in the Bashang region was significantly higher in the DGR group (78.79%) than in the non-DGR group (38.36%) (P < 0.05). The levels of TBA and CHO in the gastric juice and the cholecystokinin and gastrin levels in the serum of the DGR group were higher than those in the non-DGR group, while the serum motilin levels were significantly lower in the DGR group than in the non-DGR group (P < 0.05). The univariate analysis indicated that the proportion of patients with daily consumption of dairy products and fried foods, a high salt intake and smoking and drinking consumption were significantly higher in the DGR than in the non-DGR group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The daily consumption of dairy products and a preference for fried food are independent risk factors for the occurrence of DGR (odds ratio ≥ 1, P < 0.05).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1.
McCabe ME 4th, Dilly CK. New causes for the old problem of bile reflux gastritis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16(9): 1389–92. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.02.034

2.
Agin M, Kayar Y. The effect of primary duodenogastric bile reflux on the presence and density of helicobacter pylori and on gastritis in childhood. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55(12): 775. doi: 10.3390/medicina55120775

3.
Chen L, Zhu G, She L, Ding Y, Yang C, Zhu F. Analysis of risk factors and establishment of a prediction model for endoscopic primary bile reflux: a single-center retrospective study. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021; 8: 758771. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.758771

4.
Vageli DP, Doukas SG, Sasaki CT. Inhibition of NF-κB prevents the acidic bile-induced oncogenic mRNA phenotype, in human hypopharyngeal cells. Oncotarget 2018; 9(5): 5876–91. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23143

5.
Boone CD, Tu C, Mckenna R. Structural elucidation of the hormonal inhibition mechanism of the bile acid cholate on human carbonic anhydrase II. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2014; 70(Pt6): 1758–63. doi: 10.1107/S1399004714007457

6.
Zhang LY, Zhang J, Li D, Liu Y, Zhang DL, Liu CF, et al. Bile reflux is an independent risk factor for precancerous gastric lesions and gastric cancer: an observational cross-sectional study. J Dig Dis 2021; 22(5): 282–90. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12986

7.
Sasaki CT, Doukas SG, Costa J, Vageli DP. Biliary reflux as a causal factor in hypopharyngeal carcinoma: new clinical evidence and implications. Cancer 2019; 125(20): 3554–65. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32369

8.
Vageli DP, Doukas SG, Doukas PG, Judson BL. Bile reflux and hypopharyngeal cancer (Review). Oncol Rep 2021; 46(5). doi: 10.3892/or.2021.8195

9.
Bu T, Tang DS, Liu YH, Chen DG. Trends in dietary patterns and diet-related behaviors in China. Am J Health Behav 2021; 45(2): 371–83. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.45.2.15

10.
Zhang Q, Chen XG, Liu ZT, Varma DS, Wan R, Zhao SW. Diet diversity and nutritional status among adults in southwest China. PLoS One 2017; 12(2): e0172406. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172406

11.
Fernando I, Schmidt K A, Cromer G, Burhans MS, Kuzma JN, Hagman DK, et al. The impact of low-fat and full-fat dairy foods on symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease: an exploratory analysis based on a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Nutr 2022; 61(5): 2815–23. doi: 10.1007/s00394-022-02855-6

12.
Chinese Society of Gastroenterology, Chinese Medical Association. 2014 Chinese expert consensus on gastroesophageal reflux disease. Chin J Dig 2014(10): 649–61. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-1432.2014.10.00

13.
Basnayake C, Geeraerts A, Pauwels A, Koek G, Vaezi M, Vanuytsel T, et al. Systematic review: duodenogastroesophageal (biliary) reflux prevalence, symptoms, oesophageal lesions and treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021; 54(6): 755–78. doi: 10.1111/apt.16533

14.
Ruan Y, Liu R, Gong L. Investigation of dysregulated lipid metabolism in diabetic mice via targeted metabolomics of bile acids in enterohepatic circulation. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2022; 36(6): e9236. doi: 10.1002/rcm.9236

15.
Sifrim D. Management of bile reflux. Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY) 2013; 9(3): 179–80.

16.
Hyun JJ, Yeom SK, Shim E, Cha J, Choi I, Lee SH, et al. Correlation between bile reflux gastritis and biliary excreted contrast media in the stomach. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017; 41(5): 696–701. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000585

17.
Matsuhisa T, Arakawa T, Watanabe T, Tokutomi T, Sakurai K, Okamura S, et al. Relation between bile acid reflux into the stomach and the risk of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia: a multicenter study of 2283 cases. Dig Endosc 2013; 25(5): 519–25. doi: 10.1111/den.12030

18.
Ni Z, Min Y, Han C, Yuan T, Lu WQ, Ashktorab H, et al. TGR5-HNF4α axis contributes to bile acid-induced gastric intestinal metaplasia markers expression. Cell Death Discov 2020; 6: 56. doi: 10.1038/s41420-020-0290-3

19.
Faraoni JJ, De Andrade JB, De Matos LLM, Palma-Dibb RG. Effect of duodenogastric reflux on dental enamel. Oral Health Prev Dent 2020; 18(1): 701–6. doi: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a45073

20.
Mercan E, Duman U, Tihan D, Dilektasli E, Senol K. Cholecystectomy and duodenogastric reflux: interacting effects over the gastric mucosa. Springerplus 2016; 5(1): 1970. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-3641-z

21.
Alkhayyat M, Sanghi V, Qapaja T, Butler R, Rouphael C, McMichael J, et al. Pyloroplasty and the risk of Barrett’s esophagus in patients with gastroparesis. Dis Esophagus 2020; 33(11): doaa049. doi: 10.1093/dote/doaa049

22.
Siriwardana RC, Lokubandara RW, De Silva Hewavisenthi SJ, Liyanage SK, Jayatunge DSP, Liyanage CAH. Quality of life and impact of bile reflux after retro colic retro gastric gastrojejunostomy in Whipple surgery. BMC Gastroenterol 2017; 17(1): 19. doi: 10.1186/s12876-017-0573-1

23.
Barakat EaME, Abbas NF, El-Kholi NY. Primary bile reflux gastritis versus Helicobacter pylori gastritis: a comparative study. Egypt J Intern Med 2018; 30(1): 23–7. doi: 10.4103/ejim.ejim_42_17

24.
Qu X, Shi Y. Bile reflux and bile acids in the progression of gastric intestinal metaplasia. Chin Med J (Engl) 2022; 135(14): 1664–72. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002290

25.
Sato S, Yamamoto H, Mukaisho K, Saito S, Hattori T, Yamamoto G, et al. Continuous taurocholic acid exposure promotes esophageal squamous cell carcinoma progression due to reduced cell loss resulting from enhanced vascular development. PLoS One 2014; 9(2): e88831. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088831

26.
Zhang M, Hou ZK, Huang ZB, Chen XL, Liu FB. Dietary and lifestyle factors related to gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2021; 17: 305–23. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S296680

27.
Surdea-Blaga T, Negrutiu DE, Palage M, Dumitrascu DL. Food and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Curr Med Chem 2019; 26(19): 3497–511. doi: 10.2174/0929867324666170515123807

28.
Chiappetta S, Lainas P, Kassir R, Valizadeh R, Bosco A, Kermansaravi M. Gastroesophageal reflux disease as an indication of revisional bariatric surgery-indication and results – a systematic review and metanalysis. Obes Surg 2022; 32(9): 3156–71. doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-06183-w

29.
Black CJ, Drossman DA, Talley NJ, Ruddy J, Ford AC. Functional gastrointestinal disorders: advances in understanding and management. Lancet 2020; 396(10263): 1664–74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32115-2

30.
Otles S, Ozgoz S. Health effects of dietary fiber. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment 2014; 13(2): 191–202. doi: 10.17306/J.AFS.2014.2.8

31.
Kim D, Jung SW, Lee DW, Lee CM, Kim SY, Hyun JJ, et al. Efficacy of low dose proton pump inhibitor-based therapy to eradicate Helicobacter pylori in patients with subtotal gastrectomy. J Clin Med 2019; 8(11): 1933 doi: 10.3390/jcm8111933

32.
Roudebush C, Catala-Valentin A, Andl T, Le Bras GF, Andl CD. Activin A-mediated epithelial de-differentiation contributes to injury repair in an in vitro gastrointestinal reflux model. Cytokine 2019; 123: 154782. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2019.154782

33.
Park CH, Lee JI, Sung J, Choi S, Ko KP. A flow visualization model of duodenogastric reflux after esophagectomy with gastric interposition. J Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 8: 192. doi: 10.1186/1749-8090-8-192

34.
Fuchs CD, Trauner M. Role of bile acids and their receptors in gastrointestinal and hepatic pathophysiology. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 19(7): 432–50. doi: 10.1038/s41575-021-00566-7

35.
Dockray GJ. Cholecystokinin. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2012; 19(1): 8–12. doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e32834eb77d

36.
Zeng Q, Ou L, Wang W, Guo DY. Gastrin, cholecystokinin, signaling, and biological activities in cellular processes. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020; 11: 112. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00112

37.
Sanger GJ, Wang Y, Hobson A, Broad J. Motilin: towards a new understanding of the gastrointestinal neuropharmacology and therapeutic use of motilin receptor agonists. Br J Pharmacol 2013; 170(7): 1323–2. doi: 10.1111/bph.12075

38.
Smith JP, Nadella S, Osborne N. Gastrin and gastric cancer. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 4(1): 75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.03.004

39.
Zhao A, Wang S, Chen W, Zheng XJ, Huang FJ, Han XL, et al. Increased levels of conjugated bile acids are associated with human bile reflux gastritis. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1): 11601. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-68393-5

40.
Sirchak YS, Stan MP, Brych VV. Changes in cholecystokinin level in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease on the background of type II diabete. Wiad Lek 2018; 71(2 pt 1): 333–6.

41.
Gadenstätter M, Prommegger R, Klingler A, Schwelberger H, Weiss HG, Glaser K, et al. Alterations of gut neuropeptides in gastroesophageal reflux disease are resolved after antireflux surgery. Am J Surg 2000; 180(6): 483–6; discussion 487. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(00)00510-9

42.
Perdikis G, Wilson P, Hinder RA, Redmond EJ, Wetscher GJ, Saeki S, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is associated with enteric hormone abnormalities. Am J Surg 1994; 167(1): 186–91; discussion 191–82. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(94)90072-8

43.
Di Mario F, Crafa P, Franceschi M, Rodriguez-Castro K, Baldassarre G, Ferronato A, et al. Low levels of gastrin 17 are Related with endoscopic findings of esophagitis and typical symptoms of GERD. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2021; 30(1): 25–9. doi: 10.15403/jgld-2952