Barrett's Esophagus in Females - USC Department of Surgery ...

American Journal of Gastroenterology ISSN 0002-9270
C○ 2005 by Am. Coll. of Gastroenterology
doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40962.x
Published by Blackwell Publishing
Barrett’s Esophagus in Females: A Comparative Analysis
of Risk Factors in Females and Males
Farzaneh Banki, M.D., Steven R. DeMeester, M.D. , Rodney J. Mason, M.D. , Guilherme Campos, M.D.,
Jeffrey A. Hagen, M.D., Jeffrey H. Peters, M.D., Cedric G. Bremner, M.D., and Tom R. DeMeester, M.D.
Departments of Surgery and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, The University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California
OBJECTIVES:
METHODS:
RESULTS:
CONCLUSIONS:
Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms occur with similar frequency in males and females, yet Barrett’s
esophagus is less common in females. The reason for this disparity is unknown. The aim of this
study was to determine the factors related to Barrett’s in females.
The records of 796 patients (462 male, 334 female) evaluated from 1990 to 2000 for symptoms of
reflux were retrospectively reviewed. Physiologic abnormalities based on results of endoscopic,
motility, pH, and Bilitec testing were identified, and factors related to the presence of Barrett’s were
determined using univariate and multivariate analysis.
Females with reflux symptoms were significantly less likely to have a positive 24-h pH test, a
defective lower esophageal sphincter, or a hiatal hernia than males with reflux symptoms. Further,
females with reflux on the basis of an abnormal 24-h pH test had significantly less esophageal acid
exposure than males with reflux. In contrast, esophageal exposure to refluxed acid and bilirubin was
similar in females (n = 50) and males (n = 136) with Barrett’s. On multivariable analysis increased
esophageal bilirubin exposure was the only significant factor associated with the presence of
Barrett’s in male and female patients with reflux disease.
Females with reflux symptoms have less esophageal acid exposure on average than males.
However, females and males with Barrett’s have a similar severity of reflux, and the female gender
does not protect against the development of Barrett’s in the setting of advanced reflux disease.
Esophageal bilirubin exposure is the major risk factor for the presence of Barrett’s in patients with
reflux disease.
(Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:560–567)
INTRODUCTION
Barrett’s esophagus is defined by the presence of intestinal
metaplasia within a columnar epithelium-lined distal esophagus.
Although the etiology and risk factors for Barrett’s are incompletely
elucidated, the presence of Barrett’s has been correlated
with the frequency and duration of gastroesophageal
reflux symptoms, the presence and size of a hiatal hernia,
and the degree of lower esophageal sphincter incompetency
(1–7). Further, there is increasing evidence that the nature
of the refluxed material is also important, and particular attention
has focused on the role of alkaline or mixed gastroduodenal
reflux in the pathogenesis of Barrett’s esophagus
(7–10).
Interestingly, while none of the above factors are specifically
gender related, the male gender is also a risk factor
for Barrett’s (7, 11). In most series, the ratio of males to females
with Barrett’s is ≥2:1, yet the reasons for this disparity
Presented as a Poster of Distinction at the Annual Scientific Meeting of Digestive
Disease Week May 20, 2001.
have been largely unexplored. One hypothesis is that the female
gender protects against Barrett’s, perhaps because the
esophageal squamous mucosa is more resistant to injury in
females, or that female hormones including estrogen induce
a protective effect. Other explanations are that females have
less severe reflux disease than males, or that the nature of the
material they reflux is different. The aim of this retrospective
study was to characterize the pathophysiology of Barrett’s
esophagus in females and to determine: (i) if the same factors
are associated with Barrett’s in males and females, (ii)
if females and males with Barrett’s have a similar severity of
reflux disease, and (iii) if a similar prevalence of Barrett’s is
present in a subgroup of females and males with severe reflux
disease.
METHODS
For this study, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of
796 consecutive patients (462 males, 334 females) who presented
to the Division of Thoracic and Foregut Surgery at
USC between 1990 and 2000 for evaluation of heartburn,
560

Comparative Analysis of Risk Factors of Barrett’s Esophagus 561
regurgitation, dysphagia, or a combination of reflux symptoms.
Information about the nature and duration of the patients
symptoms was obtained from review of the detailed
history taken at the time of presentation of the patient to one
of the authors, and is based on the patient’s best recollection.
This study was approved by the IRB of the University
of Southern California.
Definitions
Barrett’s esophagus was defined as any endoscopically visible
length of columnar epithelium above the gastroesophageal
junction (GEJ) with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy. This definition
excluded all patients with a normal upper endoscopy
and intestinal metaplasia at the GEJ on biopsy (intestinal
metaplasia of the cardia), as well as those with a nonintestinalized
columnar-lined distal esophagus. Long-segment Barrett’s
was defined as a length of Barrett’s ≥3 cm.
Upper GI Endoscopy
Upper endoscopy was performed in all patients, and biopsies
were obtained using large-capacity biopsy forceps (Microvasive
® radial jaw 31263-20 or 1597-20). The GEJ was defined
as the location where, with the stomach decompressed, the
proximal extent of the gastric rugal folds joined the tubular
esophagus. The location of the GEJ, the squamocolumnar
junction (SCJ), and the crural impression were carefully
noted in each patient. A hiatal hernia was diagnosed when
the GEJ was located ≥2 cmabove the crural impression. In
all patients biopsies were obtained antegrade and retroflexed
from the GEJ, from the gastric antrum and fundus, and from
4-quadrants every 2 cm starting at the GEJ and going up
to the SCJ in patients with a columnar segment extending
proximally into the esophagus.
Manometry Technique
Esophageal manometry was performed with an eight-channel
water perfused catheter using a standard station pull-through
technique as previously described (12). The lower esophageal
sphincter (LES) was classified as manometrically defective
on the basis of one or more of the following: a resting pressure
of less than 6 mmHg, an overall length of less than 2 cm, and
/or an abdominal length of less than 1 cm.
Ambulatory Esophageal pH Monitoring Technique
Ambulatory measurement of esophageal acid exposure was
performed over a 24-h period with a pH probe placed 5 cm
above the upper border of the manometrically determined
LES. Acid-suppressing medications were discontinued before
testing (2 wk for proton pump inhibitors, 2 days for
H 2 blockers). A commercially available software program
(Synectics Medical, Minneapolis, MN) was used to analyze
the tracing. Increased (abnormal) esophageal acid exposure
was defined as a total time pH < 4greater than 4.4%.
Ambulatory Esophageal Bilirubin Monitoring Technique
Bilirubin exposure was determined over a 24-h period using a
Bilitec ® probe (Bilitec 2000, Medtronic Inc., Gastrointestinal
Division, Minneapolis, MN) placed 5 cm above the upper border
of the manometrically determined LES. Acid-suppressing
and antacid medications were discontinued 48 h before testing,
and patients were instructed to follow a specific diet that
excluded food that would interfere with the probe’s function
as previously described (13). A commercially available software
program was used to analyze the tracing (Bilitec 2000,
Synectics Medical, Dallas, TX). An absorbance threshold of
0.2 was used, and increased (abnormal) esophageal bilirubin
exposure was defined as an exposure >2.2% for the 24-h period.
Measurement of esophageal bilirubin exposure with the
Bilitec probe was used as a surrogate for alkaline or duodenogastro-esophageal
reflux.
Pathology
Biopsy specimens were fixed in 10% formaldehyde, embedded
in paraffin, sectioned, mounted on slides, and stained
with hematoxylin and eosin using standard techniques. A
single expert GI pathologist interpreted all slides. Specialized
intestinal metaplasia was determined by the presence of
well-defined goblet cells on routine sections, and confirmed
in select cases by positive staining with Alcian blue at pH
2.5. Giemsa stained antral biopsies were used to determine
the presence of H. pylori infection.
Statistics
Data are reported as median and interquartile range unless
otherwise specified. Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical
data while continuous variables were analyzed using the
Mann-Whitney test. Factors potentially predictive of the presence
of Barrett’s esophagus in patients proven to have reflux
disease on the basis of an abnormal 24-h pH test were assessed
using univariate analysis and included age, body mass
index (BMI), the duration of symptoms, presence of hiatal
hernia, number of reflux episodes, number of reflux episodes
lasting greater than 5 min, longest reflux episode, presence of
a defective LES, and bilirubin exposure. Significant factors
were then entered into a multivariable model as independent
parameters. Forward stepwise logistic regression was performed
to assess the joint effect of the variables and to define
those that were independently associated with the presence
of Barrett’s esophagus in females and in males. The results
are presented as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence
limits (CL) and p-values from the adjusted Wald’s
test. The Wald test was computed in SPSS (Version 10) using
the square of the coefficient divided by the standard error for
the independent variables. All analyses were two-sided with
significance set at 0.05 (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
Entire Population
The characteristics of the entire population are shown in
Table 1.Females evaluated for reflux symptoms were older
and significantly less likely to have a positive 24-h pH test, a

562 Banki et al.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Population
Whole Population Females Males p-Value ‡
n 796 334 (42%) 462 (58%)
Age (years) 52 (43–64) 54 (44–67) 51(42–62.5) 0.02
BMI ∗ (kg/m 2 ) 26.4 (23.6–29.5) 26.7 (22.5–30.8) 26.2 (23.8–28.9) 0.552
DOS † (years) 6 (3–14) 6 (3–11) 6 (3–15) 0.285
Number of patients with 24-h pH monitoring 769 (97%) 308 (92%) 461 (99%)
Abnormal 24-h pH 506 (66%) 165 (49%) 341 (74%) 0.0001
Number of patients with manometry 776 (98%) 315 (94%) 461 (99%)
Patients with defective LES 507 (65%) 185 (59%) 322 (70%) 0.002
Number of patients with Bilitec probe 345 (43%) 132 (49%) 213 (46%)
Abnormal Bilitec probe 164 (48%) 57 (43%) 107 (50%) 0.223
Prevalence of hiatal hernia 441 (56%) 160 (48%) 281 (61%) 0.0003
Prevalence of H. pylori # 57 (12%) 18 (12.5%) 39 (11%) 0.74
Prevalence of Barrett’s 209 (26%) 63 (18%) 146 (32%) 0.001
Values are medians, (interquartile range) or (%).
∗ BMI: body mass index.
† DOS: Duration of symptoms.
‡ Females versus males.
# Information on H. pylori status was available for 484 patients; 144 females and 340 males.
defective LES, or a hiatal hernia than males evaluated for reflux
symptoms during the same time period. Barrett’s esophagus
was present in 26% of the entire group, and was significantly
more prevalent in males. From the 796 patients
evaluated for reflux 263 patients were found to have normal
esophageal acid exposure by 24-h pH monitoring, and
27 patients did not have a pH test. These 240 patients were
excluded from further analysis.
Comparison of Females and Males with Increased
Esophageal Acid Exposure
The characteristics of the 506 patients with increased
esophageal acid exposure on 24-h pH monitoring are shown
in Table 2. Compared to males, females with reflux disease
were significantly older, had a greater body mass index, and
had less esophageal acid exposure. Barrett’s esophagus was
present in 37% of patients with an abnormal 24-h pH test,
and was significantly more prevalent in males. Long-segment
Barrett’s was more common in males while short-segment
Barrett’s predominated in females. Compared to patients with
increased esophageal acid exposure but without Barrett’s, females
and males with Barrett’s had significantly greater reflux
of both acid and bilirubin (Figs. 1A, B), and were significantly
more likely to have a positive Bilitec test (Table 3). There was
no difference in the prevalence of an abnormal Bilitec test
between females and males without Barrett’s (p = 0.6), nor
between females and males with Barrett’s (p = 0.2). Lastly,
we found that the overall length and pressure of the LES as
well as the prevalence of a defective LES was significantly
different in patients with and without Barrett’s (Table 4).
Comparison of Females and Males with Barrett’s
We found that females and males with Barrett’s were remarkably
similar. Females with Barrett’s were older (median 57
vs 52 yr, p = 0.049), while males had a longer duration of
symptoms (12 vs 10 yr, p = 0.049), but the differences were
Table 2. Characteristics of the Population with Abnormal 24-h pH Test
Whole Population Females Males p-Value †
n 506 165 (33%) 341 (67%)
Age (years) 53 (44–64) 56 (47–67) 51(42–61) 0.0006
BMI ∗ (kg/m 2 ) 27.2 (24–30) 28.4 (26–33) 26.6 (24–29) 0.004
DOS ‡ (years) 8 (3–16) 9 (3–13) 7 (3–17) 0.981
Total % time pH < 4 9.6 (6.8–15.9) 9.2 (6.3–14.7) 10.3 (6.9–16.1) 0.03
Total % time bilirubin 6.0 (0.3–23.2) 4.2 (0.1–15.9) 7.7 (0.4–25.8) 0.14
Prevalence hiatal hernia # 345 (85%) 113 (86%) 232 (85%) 0.77
Prevalence defective LES 383 (76%) 130 (79%) 253 (74%) 0.27
Barrett’s esophagus 186 (37%) 50 (30%) 136 (40%) 0.04
Length of BE (cm) 3 (2–6) 2 (2–5.5) 4 (2–6) 0.35

Comparative Analysis of Risk Factors of Barrett’s Esophagus 563
Figure 1. (A) Results of ambulatory 24-h pH and (B) bilirubin (Bilitec) monitoring in pH positive females and males with and without
Barrett’s. Females without Barrett’s had significantly less esophageal acid exposure than males without Barrett’s. Further, both females
and males without Barrett’s had significantly less esophageal acid and bilirubin exposure than their counterparts with Barrett’s. However,
esophageal acid and bilirubin exposure was similar in females and males with Barrett’s.

564 Banki et al.
Table 3. Prevalence of an Abnormal Bilitec Test in 24-h pH
Positive Patients
No Barrett’s Barrett’s p-Value
Females (n = 45) 24 (50%) 21 (95%) 0.0001
Males (n = 96) 51 (55%) 45 (82%) 0.0012
marginally significant. The youngest female with Barrett’s
was 22yr, while the youngest male was 20 yr old. Physiologic
evaluation demonstrated that the LES characteristics
and esophageal acid and bilirubin exposure in females and
males with Barrett’s were not significantly different, nor was
there a difference in the prevalence or size (median 3 cm for
females and 4 cm for males, p = 0.09) of a hiatal hernia
(Figs. 1A, B, Table 4).
Predictors of Barrett’s Esophagus in Patients
with Reflux Disease
Univariate analysis identified the duration of symptoms, presence
of hiatal hernia, number of reflux episodes, number
of reflux episodes lasting greater than 5 min, longest reflux
episode, presence of a defective LES, and abnormal bilirubin
exposure as potentially predictive factors for the presence of
Barrett’s in patients with 24-h pH proven reflux. Age and BMI
were not significant factors. Multivariable analysis demonstrated
that in both females and males with abnormal 24-h
pH tests, the only significant factor independently associated
with the presence of Barrett’s was abnormal bilirubin exposure.
The odds ratio for the presence of Barrett’s esophagus
in the setting of increased esophageal bilirubin exposure was
10.8 for females and 4.8 for males (95% CL 2.3–53, p =
0.006 for females; 1.7–9.8, p < 0.001 for males).
Prevalence of Barrett’s in Patients with Multiple
Physiologic Abnormalities Suggesting Severe
Reflux Disease
Within the population of 796 patients who underwent evaluation
for reflux symptoms, 98 patients (33 females and
65 males) had physiologic evidence of severe gastroesophageal
reflux disease based on the presence of all of the
following abnormalities: a defective LES, a hiatal hernia, and
increased esophageal acid and bilirubin exposure based on
24-h pH and Bilitec testing. In this subgroup of patients the
overall prevalence of Barrett’s was 54%. Importantly, in these
patients with severe reflux disease the prevalence of Barrett’s
was similar in females and males (females: 17/33 (52%) vs
males: 36/65 (55%), p = 0.88).
DISCUSSION
Although a common disorder, much remains unknown about
the epidemiology of Barrett’s esophagus. Most studies have
found distinct racial and gender differences, with females
and non-Caucasians significantly less likely to have Barrett’s
(14–17). In a study by Rex and colleagues 961 subjects who
presented for screening colonoscopy initially underwent upper
endoscopy (18). Barrett’s esophagus was found in 4.6% of
females compared to 8.2% of males (p = 0.04 by χ 2 ). While
the racial differences in Barrett’s are readily explained by the
reduced incidence of reflux disease among non-Caucasian
populations, the gender difference is less easily understood.
Kennedy et al. noted that the prevalence of reflux symptoms
is similar in males and females in Western populations, and
a study from Finland reported that more women than men
were referred for upper endoscopy to evaluate reflux symptoms
(19, 20) (personal communication with Dr. Voutilainen).
Further, in a recent analysis of 4,684 people taking chronic
acid suppression medication, the majority (55%) were female
(21).
In contrast to the similar prevalence of reflux symptoms
and use of acid-suppression medication, complications from
reflux disease including esophagitis, Barrett’s, and adenocarcinoma
of the esophagus are known to occur less commonly
in females (14, 16, 20, 22, 23). This suggests that either some
factor associated with the female sex protects against reflux
complications, or that despite the presence of symptoms
Table 4. Physiologic Characteristics of Females and Males with Abnormal 24-h pH Tests
LES Pressure Total LES Length Prevalence of Prevalence of a
(mmHg) (cm) Defective LES (%) Hiatal Hernia (%)
Females without BE∗ 6.4 (4.0–10.2) 2.2 (1.8–3.1) 76 82
n = 115
Females with BE ‡ 4.1 (1.6–8.4) 1.8 (0.8–3.2) 90 93
n = 50
Males without BE # 6.8 (3.4–12.3) 2.2 (1.4–3.2) 63 84
n = 205
Males with BE † 4.0 (2.0–5.8) 1.8 (1.2–2.6) 91 85
n = 136
Values are medians (interquartile range), or frequency.
∗‡ p-Values significant for all comparisons between females without BE and females with BE except for prevalence of a hiatal hernia (LES pressure p = 0.001; LES length p =
0.03; prevalence of a defective LES p = 0.04; prevalence of a hiatal hernia p = 0.11).
#† p-Values significant for all comparisons between males without BE and males with BE except for prevalence of a hiatal hernia (LES pressure p < 0.001; LES length p = 0.006;
prevalence of a defective LES p < 0.0001; prevalence of a hiatal hernia p = 0.74).
∗# p-Values not significant for all comparisons between females and males without BE except for the prevalence of a defective LES (LES pressure p = 0.79; LES length p = 0.39;
prevalence of a defective LES p = 0.03; prevalence of a hiatal hernia p = 0.85).
‡† p-Values not significant for all comparisons between females and males with BE (LES pressure p = 0.41; LES length p = 0.84; prevalence of a defective LES p = 0.29;
prevalence of a hiatal hernia p = 0.20).

Comparative Analysis of Risk Factors of Barrett’s Esophagus 565
females on average have less severe reflux disease than males.
To answer this question we reviewed the records of 796 patients
with reflux symptoms. We were unable to reliably assess
the prevalence of esophagitis in our patients since most were
taking proton pump inhibitors on a regular basis at the time
they presented for evaluation. However, physiologic evaluation
demonstrated that compared to males, females with reflux
symptoms were significantly less likely to have an abnormal
24-h pH test, a defective LES, or a hiatal hernia. Since
these abnormalities correlate with the severity of reflux disease,
we conclude that females, despite the presence of reflux
symptoms, have less severe reflux disease on average than
males. Next, we looked specifically at the 506 patients with
reflux disease proven by the presence of increased esophageal
acid exposure on 24-h pH testing. Overall, females had less
esophageal acid exposure than males, and in particular, the
subgroup of females without Barrett’s had significantly less
esophageal acid exposure than males without Barrett’s. This
again suggests that reflux disease on average is less severe in
females, even when comparing only patients with a positive
24-h pH test.
A striking finding in this study was that in contrast to the
differences between females and males with reflux but without
Barrett’s, females with Barrett’s were similar to males
with Barrett’s in nearly all aspects. Specifically, the manometric
characteristics of the LES, the prevalence and size of
a hiatal hernia, and the degree of esophageal acid and bilirubin
exposure were not significantly different between females
and males with Barrett’s. Thus, by physiologic assessment
females with Barrett’s had a similar severity of reflux and
a similar frequency of physiologic abnormalities associated
with reflux as males with Barrett’s. Consequently, our data
would suggest that in a patient with Barrett’s the physiologic
derangements are similar regardless of gender.
To address the question of whether female gender rendered
patients with severe reflux disease less likely to develop Barrett’s
we compared the prevalence of Barrett’s in a subgroup
of females and males with similar physiologic derangements.
From the initial 796 patients who presented with reflux symptoms
we selected all patients with the following combination
of abnormalities: an abnormal 24-h pH test, an abnormal
Bilitec test, a defective LES, and a hiatal hernia. This group
would be expected to have severe reflux disease, and indeed
54% of the 98 patients who met these criteria had Barrett’s
esophagus. We found that within this subset of patients the
prevalence of Barrett’s was similar in females and males (52%
of females and 55% of males), indicating that severe reflux
produced Barrett’s in a more than one-half of these patients
regardless of gender. Importantly, there was no evidence of a
protective effect or factor against Barrett’s in females. However,
why approximately one-half of the patients with severe
reflux disease did not have Barrett’s remains an important
and unanswered question, and future investigations should
perhaps focus on these patients.
Lastly, we used multivariable analysis to determine which
factors were independently associated with the presence of
Barrett’s in patients with 24-h pH proven reflux disease. The
only significant factor associated with the presence of Barrett’s
in patients with reflux disease was abnormal esophageal
exposure to bilirubin as determined by the Bilitec test. The
likelihood of finding Barrett’s was increased 11-fold in females
and 5-fold in males with increased bilirubin reflux.
This finding confirms what we previously reported in a largely
male group of patients with reflux (7). This does not imply
that acid is not important. Indeed, we defined reflux disease by
the presence of increased esophageal exposure to acid. Thus
all patients included in the multivariable analysis had abnormal
esophageal acid exposure, but what separated those with
reflux without Barrett’s from those with reflux and Barrett’s
was abnormal esophageal bilirubin exposure. In fact, 95%
of females and 82% of males with Barrett’s had an abnormal
Bilitec study, indicating a high prevalence of duodenogastro-esophageal
reflux in patients with Barrett’s. This finding
is in line with the developing concept that while increased
esophageal acid exposure defines reflux disease and leads to
columnarization of the distal esophagus, alkaline or duodenogastric
juice may be more important in the development of
intestinalization (7, 9, 24–26).
The findings in this study have several important clinical
implications. First, females with significant reflux are at risk
for Barrett’s, and endoscopy should not be omitted in the
evaluation of these patients. Further, although females with
Barrett’s tended to be older than males with Barrett’s, the
youngest female with Barrett’s in our study was 22 yr old.
Consequently, age, like gender, cannot be used to reliably exclude
the potential for Barrett’s to be present in a patient with
reflux. Lastly, females and males with Barrett’s have been
shown to have a similar risk of cancer (23). Therefore, similar
to males, females with reflux are at risk for Barrett’s, and
females with Barrett’s are at risk for esophageal adnenocarcinoma.
Although to date this is the largest study that includes extensive
physiologic evaluation of patients with reflux symptoms
(esophageal manometry in 98% and 24-h pH monitoring
in 97% of patients), we recognize that there are limitations in
our study. First, only about one-half of the patients underwent
Bilitec monitoring. Bilitec testing was not available throughout
the entire timeframe of this study, and some patients were
unwilling to undergo the test. While 43% of all patients is a
high percentage to have Bilitec testing compared to most retrospective
clinical series, ideally all patients would have had
all the tests. This is of course unrealistic in clinical practice.
However, we cannot exclude the possibility that a bias existed
in the selection of patients to undergo Bilitec testing.
We believe though that our findings are valid since a similar
percentage of females (49%) and males (46%) had Bilitec
monitoring, more patients without Barrett’s had Bilitec monitoring
than did patients with Barrett’s, and overall less than
one-half of the patients studied by Bilitec were found to have
abnormal bilirubin exposure in the esophagus.
Another limiting factor is that patients referred to our center
all had reflux symptoms considered significant enough

566 Banki et al.
to warrant thorough evaluation and potentially antireflux
surgery. The severity of reflux is reflected by the 26% overall
prevalence of Barrett’s in our patient population. While the
overall severity of reflux disease in our patients represents
a potential limitation of this study, it also provides an excellent
opportunity to determine the factors associated with
Barrett’s, since reflux disease is a prerequisite for Barrett’s
esophagus. The frequency of Barrett’s in our population is
probably higher than would be expected in a general medical
practice, but we found that Barrett’s was more prevalent
in males, and our male/female ratio of 2.7/1 is similar to
what others report (14). This would suggest that although the
severity of reflux disease may be skewed in our population,
the demographics are probably not. Further, the finding by
Gerson et al. that 25% of asymptomatic veterans have Barrett’s
demonstrates that the true prevalence of this disease in
the general population is poorly understood (27).
In conclusion, we found that symptomatic females tend
to have less severe reflux by physiologic testing than symptomatic
males. Even among patients with an abnormal 24-h
pH test but without Barrett’s females on average had less
esophageal acid exposure. However, regardless of gender patients
with Barrett’s had severe reflux disease. In both females
and males with reflux, the only significant risk factor for the
presence of Barrett’s esophagus was increased bilirubin exposure
in the esophagus, indicating abnormal alkaline reflux.
Importantly, we found no evidence of a protective factor in
females against Barrett’s. Rather, given a similar severity of
reflux disease males and females were equally likely to have
Barrett’s esophagus. Consequently, the reason fewer females
have Barrett’s is that on average females have less severe
reflux than males.
Reprint requests and correspondence: Steven R. DeMeester,
M.D., Associate Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The University
of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo St., Suite 514, Los
Angeles, CA 90033.
Received June 12, 2004; accepted September 24, 2004.
REFERENCES
1. Winters CJ, Spurling TJ, Chobanian SJ, et al. Barrett’s
esophagus. A prevalent, occult complication
of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology
1987;92(1):118–24.
2. Eisen GM, Sandler RS, Murray S, et al. The relationship between
gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications
with Barrett’s esophagus. (See comments). Am J Gastroenterol
1997;92(1):27–31.
3. Lieberman DA, Oehlke M, Helfand M. Risk factors for
Barrett’s esophagus in community-based practice. GORGE
consortium. Gastroenterology Outcomes Research Group in
Endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92(8):1293–7.
4. Loughney T, Maydonovitch CL, Wong RK. Esophageal
manometry and ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring in patients
with short and long segment Barrett’s esophagus. Am
J Gastroenterol 1998;93(6):916–9.
5. Oberg S, DeMeester TR, Peters JH, et al. The extent of
Barrett’s esophagus depends on the status of the lower
esophageal sphincter and the degree of esophageal acid
exposure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;117(3):572–
80.
6. Cameron AJ. Barrett’s esophagus: Prevalence and size of
hiatal hernia. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94(8):2054–9.
7. Campos GM, DeMeester SR, Peters JH, et al. Predictive
factors of Barrett esophagus: Multivariate analysis of 502
patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arch Surg
2001;136(11):1267–73.
8. Menges M, Muller M, Zeitz M. Increased acid and bile reflux
in Barrett’s esophagus compared to reflux esophagitis, and
effect of proton pump inhibitor therapy. Am J Gastroenterol
2001;96(2):331–7.
9. Kaur BS, Ouatu-Lascar R, Omary MB, et al. Bile salts induce
or blunt cell proliferation in Barrett’s esophagus in an
acid-dependent fashion. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver
Physiol 2000;278(6):G1000–9.
10. Martinez de Haro L, Ortiz A, Parrilla P, et al. Intestinal metaplasia
in patients with columnar lined esophagus is associated
with high levels of duodenogastroesophageal reflux.
Ann Surg 2001;233(1):34–8.
11. Cameron AJ, Lomboy CT. Barrett’s esophagus: Age, prevalence,
and extent of columnar epithelium. (See comments).
Gastroenterology 1992;103(4):1241–5.
12. Bremner CG, DeMeester T, Bremner R, et al. Esophageal
motility testing made easy. St Louis, MO: Quality Medical
Publishing, 2001.
13. Kauer WK, Burdiles P, Ireland AP, et al. Does duodenal
juice reflux into the esophagus of patients with complicated
GERD? Evaluation of a fiberoptic sensor for bilirubin.
(See comments). Am J Surg 1995;169(1):98–103; discussion
103–4.
14. Hirota WK, Loughney TM, Lazas DJ, et al. Specialized
intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and cancer of the esophagus
and esophagogastric junction: Prevalence and clinical data.
Gastroenterology 1999;116(2):277–85.
15. Gerson LB, Edson R, Lavori PW, et al. Use of a simple symptom
questionnaire to predict Barrett’s esophagus in patients
with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol
2001;96(7):2005–12.
16. Conio M, Cameron AJ, Romero Y, et al. Secular trends in
the epidemiology and outcome of Barrett’s oesophagus in
Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gut 2001;48(3):304–9.
17. Conio M, Filiberti R, Blanchi S, et al. Risk factors for
Barrett’s esophagus: A case-control study. Int J Cancer
2002;97(2):225–9.
18. Rex D, Cummings O, Shaw M, et al. Screening for Barrett’s
esophagus in colonscopy patients with and without heartburn.
Gastroenterology 2003;125:1670–7.
19. Kennedy TM, Jones RH, Hungin AP, et al. Irritable
bowel syndrome, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and bronchial
hyper-responsiveness in the general population. Gut
1998;43(6):770–4.
20. Mantynen T, Farkkila M, Kunnamo I, et al. The impact of
upper GI endoscopy referral volume on the diagnosis of
gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications: A 1-
year cross-sectional study in a referral area with 260,000
inhabitants. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97(10):2524–9.
21. Jacobson BC, Ferris TG, Shea TL, et al. Who is using
chronic acid suppression therapy and why? Am J Gastroenterol
2003;98(1):51–8.
22. Avidan B, Sonnenberg A, Schnell TG, et al. Risk factors
for erosive reflux esophagitis: A case-control study. Am J
Gastroenterol 2001;96(1):41–6.
23. Solaymani-Dodaran M, Logan R, West J, et al. Risk of
oesophageal cancer in Barrett’s oesophagus and gastrooesophageal
reflux. Gut 2004;53:1070–4.

Comparative Analysis of Risk Factors of Barrett’s Esophagus 567
24. Csendes A, Maluenda F, Braghetto I, et al. Location of
the lower oesophageal sphincter and the squamous columnar
mucosal junction in 109 healthy controls and 778 patients
with different degrees of endoscopic oesophagitis. Gut
1993;34(1):21–7.
25. Kauer WK, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, et al. Mixed reflux of
gastric and duodenal juices is more harmful to the esophagus
than gastric juice alone. The need for surgical therapy reemphasized.
(See comments). Ann Surg 1995;222(4):525–
31; discussion 531–3.
26. Fitzgerald RC, Omary MB, Triadafilopoulos G. Dynamic effects
of acid on Barrett’s esophagus. An ex vivo proliferation
and differentiation model. J Clin Invest 1996;98(9):2120–8.
27. Gerson LB, Shetler K, Triadafilopoulos G. Prevalence of
Barrett’s esophagus in asymptomatic individuals. (comment).
Gastroenterology 2002;123(2):461–7.