UEG's educational platform for gastroenterology education bringing recordings, courses, guidelines, and more together in one place.

UEG Week Berlin 2025 Recordings Gut Guide online What's new on Gutflix

Trending on Gutflix

Rate for better recommendations!

Your feedback helps us show you more of what you like and less of what you dislike!

More of this!

We will show you more similar content.

Not for me!

We won't suggest this again.

Bookmark!

Save this content for later!

New to myUEG? Create an account! Log In with myUEG account

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON CHRONIC INTESTINAL PSEUDO-OBSTRUCTION IN ADULTS

Bert Broeders 1, Heithem Soliman 2, Rebecca E Burgell 3, Michael Camilleri 4, Roberto De Giorgio 5, Claudia Defilippi 6, Kee Wook Jung 7, Simon Lal 8, Ana Maria Madrid 6, Carolina Malagelada 9, Atsushi Nakajima 10, Loris Pironi 11, Tim Vanuytsel 12, Nicholas Verne 13, Arved Weimann 14, May Wong 15, Vincenzo Stanghellini 16, Jan Tack 17

Affiliations

1 Ku Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

2 Hôpital Louis Mourier - AP-HP, Colombes, France

3 Alfred Health and Monash University, Prahran, Australia

4 Mayo Clinic Dept. of Gastroenterology Charlton Bldg., Rm. 8-110, Rochester, MN, United States

5 University of Ferrara, Ferarra, Italy

6 Hospital Clinico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

7 Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, Republic of

8 Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom

9 Hospital Vall d`Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

10 Yokohama City University Hosp. Dept. of Gastroenterology, Yokohama, Japan

11 University of Bologna S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy

12 KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

13 University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis, United States

14 St. George Hospital, Leipzig, Germany

15 Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia

16 University of Bologna Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi Internal Med. & Gastroenterology - Department of, Bologna, Italy

17 University of Leuven, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium

Summary

AI Generated

An international expert panel reached consensus on 77 of 139 statements defining the diagnosis and management of chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction in adults through a three-round Delphi process.

CIPO is defined as symptoms caused by severe small bowel dysmotility without mechanical obstruction, with documented dilated intestine or air/fluid levels mimicking mechanical obstruction, with pseudo-obstructive episodes or continuous symptoms as cardinal features along with abdominal pain, bloating, and distension.
Radiographic imaging to confirm intestinal dilation or air/fluid levels and rule out mechanical obstruction is mandatory for diagnosis, while no other test including endoscopy, manometry, or laparoscopy is considered indispensable.
Screening for secondary causes such as systemic sclerosis, paraneoplastic disease, or infectious disease is supported, and differential diagnoses including drug adverse effects, adhesions, or enteric radiation should be ruled out.
Management includes dietary adjustment with supplementation and home parenteral nutrition if enteral nutrition fails, treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth with intermittent antibiotics without breath testing, and avoidance of opioids and surgical resections.
No consensus was reached on the choice or efficacy of drug therapy including prokinetics, laxatives, or somatostatin analogs, highlighting gaps in the current literature.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

This summary was generated by an AI large language model based on the content transcript. It is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a substitute for clinical judgment. Always rely on your professional expertise and the full clinical context when making clinical decisions.

Abstract

Introduction

Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIPO) is a rare, heterogeneous, and challenging gastrointestinal motility disorder lacking clinical guidelines in adults.

Aims & Methods

We aimed to develop an international consensus among international experts in gut motility on the diagnosis and management of CIPO based on existing literature and expert opinion. Two experts from each continental motility society and experts on pathology, surgery, and nutritional aspects of CIPO were selected for participation. A list of >130 statements was drafted, subdivided into 11 topics. After revisions and validation by the experts of the list of statements, a systematic literature review was performed to summarize available data on every statement. Using a Delphi process of 3 voting rounds, consensus statements were identified (defined as >80% agreement).

Results

Consensus was reached for 77/139 statements. The panel defined CIPO as symptoms caused by severe small bowel dysmotility without mechanical obstruction, and with documented dilated intestine or air/fluid levels, mimicking mechanical obstruction. Pseudo-obstructive episodes or continuous pseudo-obstructive symptoms were considered a cardinal feature of CIPO. Abdominal pain, bloating, and distension were also considered cardinal symptoms, while nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation were considered associated symptoms.
Radiographic imaging was considered mandatory in the diagnostic work-up, to confirm intestinal dilation or air/fluid levels and to rule out mechanical obstruction.. No other diagnostic test was considered indispensable for the diagnosis, including endoscopy, manometry, or laparoscopy. Screening for secondary causes of CIPO, including systemic sclerosis, paraneoplastic disease, or infectious disease, was supported, with a possible role for transmural histology. Differential diagnoses, including drug adverse effects, adhesions, or enteric radiation, should be ruled out. The experts also recommended screening for complications such as nutritional deficiencies and osteoporosis.
Management requires dietary adjustment, with supplementation for deficiencies, and setting up home parenteral nutrition if enteral nutrition fails. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth was recognized as a main contributor to symptom aggravation and should be treated by intermittent antibiotics without the need for breath testing confirmation in patients with CIPO. There was no consensus regarding choice or efficacy of drug therapy, including prokinetics (e.g. pyridostigmine, prucalopride), laxatives, or somatostatin analogs. Opioids and surgical resections should be avoided; although endoscopic or surgical decompression procedures may be helpful in acute or persisting pseudo-obstructive symptoms.

Conclusion

This expert consensus developed key statements for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of CIPO in adult patients. It provides the opportunity to harmonize the management of these patients and to highlight the gaps in the current literature.

Disclosure

Jan Tack has given Scientific advice to Aclipse, Adare, AlfaSigma, Clasado, Danone, Falk, FitForMe, Ironwood, Kyowa Kirin, Menarini, Promed, Ricordati, Takeda, Truvion, Tsumura, Zealand Pharmaceuticals, has received research support from Biohit, Kiowa Kirin, ProMed, Sofar and Takeda, and has served on the Speaker bureau for Abbott, Bio-Codex, Mayoly, Menarini, ProMed, Reckitt-Benckiser, Schwabe, Takeda, Thai Meiji and Truvion Pharmaceuticals.

Conference

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Small Intestine & Nutrition

Submission format

Abstract

Session

Lower GI motility (Posters)

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jøran Hjelmesæth

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Albert J. Bredenoord

$How to manage refractory reflux$

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jolanta Lorentzen 1, Jostein W. Hauge 2, Asle W. Medhus 3, Jens K. Hertel 2, Birgitte Seip 4, Marius Svanevik 2, Rune Sandbu 2, Dag Hofsø 2, Jøran Hjelmesæth 2

Affiliations

1 Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway

2 Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tonsberg, Norway

3 Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

4 Vestfold Hospital, Tønsberg, Norway

Summary

AI Generated

Summary is not available for this content yet.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Abstract

Introduction

Few studies have examined esophageal motility disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes operated with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or gastric bypass (RYGB).

Aims & Methods

We have recently reported overall prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in this group of patients (1) and now aimed to investigate potential differences between the two surgical methods regarding the prevalence of dysmotility 5 years after surgery. Furthermore, we also aimed to analyse and report on the available GERD-data in detail.
In the Oseberg study (January 2013 – December 2022), 125 patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² and type 2 diabetes were screened, sixteen patients were excluded or withdrew consent, leaving 109 patients allocated to SG (n=55) or RYGB (n=54). To assess reflux symptoms, GerdQ (Gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire) was completed. Gastroscopy and 24-hour pH monitoring were used to examine GERD. High-resolution manometry with the Chicago classification v3.0 was used to assess esophageal motility.

Results

At inclusion the average age was 47.7 years (SD 9.6), BMI was 42.3 kg/m2 (5.3), and 66% were women. At the 5-year follow-up, 29 (53%) patients in SG-group and 32 (59%) in RYGB-group underwent gastroscopy, 22 (40%) vs. 25 (46%) underwent 24-hour pH monitoring, 23 (42%) vs. 26 (48%) underwent manometry, and 42 (76%) vs. 42 (78%) completed GerdQ. The proportion of patients with GERD symptoms (GerdQ ≥8) was low in both groups, with a slightly lower prevalence after RYGB (2%) than after SG (14%). There was no difference in the prevalence of erosive esophagitis between the groups (38% in SG and 41% in RYGB), all findings with less advanced esophagitis (Los Angeles grades A and B), but one patient in each group had new onset Barrett's esophagus. The proportion of patients with pH<4 for more than 6% of the recording (Acid exposure time, AET) was significantly higher after SG compared with RYGB (59% versus 8%, p < 0.0001). Esophageal dysmotility was diagnosed in 14 (61%) after SG compared with 19 (73%) patients after RYGB. Most of these patients (n=22) had hypertensive or hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter (LES), with no difference between groups. The remaining 11 patients had ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) or elevated distal contractile integral (DCI). None of the patients with dysmotility reported swallowing difficulties or chest pain with food intake.

Conclusion

The Oseberg study demonstrates a high prevalence of asymptomatic esophageal dysmotility after SG or RYGB with uncertain clinical relevance. Furthermore, a seven times higher prevalence of pathological acid reflux after SG compared with RYGB was demonstrated, but the prevalences of erosive esophagitis and esophageal dysmotility were approximately similar between groups. Few of the examined patients reported GERD symptoms, hence objective assessment of GERD should be included in long-term follow-up after SG to detect and prevent the development of Barrett's esophagus, dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma.

References

1. Hauge JW et al., Effect of gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy on the remission of type 2 diabetes, weight loss, and cardiovascular risk factors at 5 years (Oseberg): secondary outcomes of a single-centre, triple-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2025 Apr 1:S2213-8587(24)00396-6

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Neurogastroenterology & Motility Oesophagus

Submission format

Abstract

Session

Burning issues in GERD

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jøran Hjelmesæth

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Albert J. Bredenoord

$How to manage refractory reflux$

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

Summary

AI Generated

Summary is not available for this content yet.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Abstract

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Primary Care

Session

Chronic constipation

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jøran Hjelmesæth

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Albert J. Bredenoord

$How to manage refractory reflux$

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive 1

Affiliations

1 European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG), Sant Adrià de Besòs ( Barcelona), Spain

Summary

AI Generated

Summary is not available for this content yet.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Abstract

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Neurogastroenterology & Motility Primary Care

Session

Therapy update: Dyspepsia

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jøran Hjelmesæth

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Albert J. Bredenoord

$How to manage refractory reflux$

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

Summary

AI Generated

Summary is not available for this content yet.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Abstract

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Mechanisms & Personalised Medicine Small Intestine & Nutrition Oesophagus Paediatrics

Session

Therapy update: EoE

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jøran Hjelmesæth

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Albert J. Bredenoord

$How to manage refractory reflux$

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Alberto Barchi 1, Antonio Ventimiglia 2, Marina Girelli 2, Francesca Rusconi 3, Sandro Passaretti 2, Silvio Danese 2, Pierfrancesco Visaggi 4, Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino 5, Albert J. Bredenoord 6, Edoardo Vespa 2

Affiliations

1 IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, Milano, Italy

2 IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

3 TriNetX Europe NV, Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium

4 Gastroenterology Unit, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

5 University of Padua, Division of Gastroenterology, Padua, Italy

6 Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Summary

AI Generated

Summary is not available for this content yet.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Abstract

Introduction

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus. Inflammation in EoE has been associated with potential risk of esophageal cancer (EC), with controversial results by the most recent studies [1] [2] [3].

Aims & Methods

The aim of this study was to estimate the true risk burden of EC in EoE, further investigating the confounding role of overlapping gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or Barrett Esophagus (BE) on EC occurrence. We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study on aggregated data of EoE patients accessing the global federated health research network “TriNetX”, with access to electronic medical records from approximately a hundred million patients across large healthcare organizations (HCOs), based on the ICD-10 code (K20.0), from January 1^st 2000 until March 31^st 2025. We inferred the risk of EC, by comparing two different EoE cohorts: cohort A including EoE diagnosis (excluding eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders [EGIDS]), not applying any other restrictive criteria; cohort B with only pure EoE diagnosis excluding any instance of GERD (K21.0) and Barrett esophagus (BE) (K22.7) or other EGIDS. The control cohort comprised patients encountered in outpatient clinic for undefined issues (Z00), without diagnosis of EoE/BE or pre-cancerous lesions. We used propensity score nearest neighbor greedy matching, adjusting for PPI use, family history of GI cancer, age, sex, other esophageal diseases (K22.0) and GERD status. Kaplan-Meyer (KM) curves with censoring were built for time-to-event analysis. Log Rank test was used to compare KM curves. Hazard Ratios (HRs) and Risk Ratio (RR) estimation for EC risk were calculated and compared. Sub-analyses for squamous-cell cancer (SCC) vs adenocarcinoma, and for EC location in the esophagus (distal, medium and proximal) were implemented.

Results

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 92,447 patients with EoE (with or without GERD) (cohort A) (mean age 38.9±20.7 years, M 59.7%, previous history of malignant GI neoplasm 2.7%, GERD 40.4%, other esophageal diseases 14.9%, PPI use 40.4%; all p>0.05 with control group) and 32,270 patients pure EoE (without GERD/BE) (cohort B) (mean age 33.9±19.3 years, M 64.7%, previous history of malignant GI neoplasm 1.2%, GERD 0%, other esophageal diseases 8.3%, PPI use 23.2%; all p>0.05 with control group), were compared with controls subjects. Mean follow-up of cohort A was 1298.6 days compared to 1046.5 days in cohort B. The total number of EC occurrences in cohort A were 44 in EA group compared to 31 in the control group, resulting in a HR of 1.676 (1.058-2.657, 95%CI), while a non-significant RR of 1.419 (0.896, 2.247, 95%CI). The KM survival analysis resulted significant (log-rank test p=0.026). Interestingly, when comparing cohort B (pure EoE without GERD or BE) with the control group, only 10 instances of EC in both groups where encountered during the follow-up, with a non-significant HR of 0.893 (0.290-2.754 95%CI) with no difference in the KM survival analysis (p= 0.844). No differences in sub-analysis for squamous cell or adenocarcinoma cancer, neither for EC occurrence in different esophageal localizations were detected.

Conclusion

The results from this global retrospective study on more than 90,000 EoE patients, confirmed the irrelevant risk of EC in pure EoE. The mild association reported in other studies may be likely due to EoE overlap with GERD/BE. No specific surveillance for EC seems needed in EoE when GERD and BE are not present.

References

1. Albaneze N, Cotton CC, Anderson C, Katzka DA, Dellon ES. No Association Between Eosinophilic Oesophagitis and Oesophageal Cancer in US Adults: A Case-Control Study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2025 Jan;61(2):363-368. doi: 10.1111/apt.18431. Epub 2024 Dec 4. PMID: 39629856; PMCID: PMC11680457.
2. Zhou MJ, Hsing AW, Clarke JO. Prevalence and predictors of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Dis Esophagus. 2025 Jan 7;38(1):doae120. doi: 10.1093/dote/doae120. PMID: 39775829.
3. Uchida AM, Schuman SS, Pyne A, Peterson K, Carlson M, Garber JJ, Roelstraete B, Ludvigsson JF. Risk of Cancer Diagnosis in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Using a Nationwide Swedish Population Cohort. United European Gastroenterol J. 2024 Dec;12(10):1378-1387. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12713. Epub 2024 Nov 20. PMID: 39565026; PMCID: PMC11652337.

Disclosure

E.V. received speaker and/or consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, Falk Pharma, Apollo Therapeutics, and Aurora Biofarma. EVS received consulting fees from Dr Falk Pharma and Reckitt Benckiser; research support from Medtronic and Diversatek Healthcare. DAC.: Medtronic(Speaking, Consulting, License); Diversatek (Consulting); Braintree(Consulting); Medpace (Consulting); Phathom Pharmaceuticals(Speaking); Regeneron/Sanofi(Speaking). AJB received research funding from BMS, Sanofi/Regeneron, SST, and Dr. Falk Pharma and received speaker and/or consulting fees from Uniquity, Laborie, Medtronic, BMS, Dr. Falk Pharma, Calypso Biotech, Eupraxia, Aqilion, Alimentiv, Sanofi/Regeneron, Uniquity, Reckitt, AlfaSigma and AstraZeneca. All other authors did not have any disclosures.

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Histopathology Mechanisms & Personalised Medicine Oesophagus

Submission format

Abstract

Session

EoE: From gene to clinic

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jøran Hjelmesæth

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Albert J. Bredenoord

$How to manage refractory reflux$

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra

UEG Presentation

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

$How to manage refractory reflux$

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra 1

Affiliations

1 University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

Summary

AI Generated

Summary is not available for this content yet.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Abstract

Event

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Oesophagus Primary Care Surgery

Session

Managing reflux at multiple levels

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES OPERATED WITH GASTRIC BYPASS OR SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY, 5-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE OSEBERG STUDY

Jøran Hjelmesæth

Chronic constipation (Complete Session)

GP: First line diagnosis and treatment

Juan Mendive

Panel discussion: Therapy update - EoE

THE REAL-LIFE BURDEN OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A COMPARATIVE PROPENSITY-MATCHED ANALYSIS FROM A GLOBAL MULTICENTER DATABASE

Albert J. Bredenoord

$How to manage refractory reflux$

How to manage refractory reflux

Jordi Serra