Back to Authors

Bor, Serhat

0000-0001-5766-9598

Mayo Clinic

Div. Gastroenterology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.

Citations 4

Prokinetics‐safety and efficacy: The European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility/The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society expert review
Bor, Serhat , Kalkan, İsmail Hakkı , Savarino, Edoardo , Rao, Satish S.C. , Tack, Jan , Pasricha, Jay, Cangemi, David J. , Schol, Jolien , Karunaratne, Tennekoon B. , Ghisa, Matteo , Ahuja, Nitin K. , Lacy, Brian E. , Kalkan, İsmail H , Rao, Satish , Cangemi, David , Karunaratne, Tennekon , Lacy, Brian , Tack, Jan , Bor, Serhat , Savarino, Edoardo , Pasricha, Jay, Lacy, Brian E.

Neurogastroenterology & Motility | March 11, 2024 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 5 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/nmo.14774 Get It

AbstractBackgroundProkinetics are a class of pharmacological drugs designed to improve gastrointestinal (GI) motility, either regionally or across the whole gut. Each drug has its merits and drawbacks, and based on current evidence as high‐quality studies are limited, we have no clear recommendation on one class or other. However, there remains a large unmet need for both regionally selective and/or globally acting prokinetic drugs that work primarily intraluminally and are safe and without systemic side effects.PurposeHere, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of six classes of prokinetic drugs, including their pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, safety and tolerability and potential indications.
Esophageal motility disorders on high‐resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0 ©
Yadlapati, Rena , Fox, Mark , Bredenoord, Albert J. , Gyawali, C. Prakash , Roman, Sabine , Babaei, Arash , Mittal, Ravinder K. , Rommel, Nathalie , Savarino, Edoardo , Smout, A. J. P. M. , Vaezi, Michael F. , Akiyama, Junichi, Bhatia, Shobna , Carlson, Dustin A. , Chen, Joan W. , Cisternas, Daniel , Cock, Charles , Defilippi, Claudia, Gonlachanvit, Sutep , Hebbard, Geoffrey , Jung, Kee Wook , Katz, Philip O. , Katzka, David A. , Khan, Anzalee , Kohn, Geoffrey P. , Lazarescu, Adriana , Lengliner, Johannes, Omari, Taher , Pohl, Daniel , Richter, Joel E. , Serra, Jordi , Sweis, Rami , Tack, Jan , Tatum, Roger P. , Vela, Marcelo F. , Wu, Justin C. Y. , Xiao, Yinglian , Pandolfino, John E. , Fox, Mark R , Gyawali, C P , Roman, S , Babaei, Arash , Mittal, Ravinder K , Sifrim, Daniel , Smout, André , Zerbib, Frank , Bor, Serhat , Carlson, Dustin A , Cisternas, Daniel , Cock, Charles , de Bortoli, Nicola , Fass, Ronnie , Ghoshal, Uday C , Jung, Kee Wook , Khan, Abraham , Omari, Taher , Park, Moo In , Penagini, Roberto , Serra, Jordi , Tack, Jan , Savarino, Edoardo , Kahrilas, Peter J. , Bor, Serhat , Coss‐Adame, Enrique , Bortoli, Nicola de , Fass, Ronnie , Ghoshal, Uday C. , Hani, Albis Cecilia , Mittal, Sumeet K. , Penagini, Roberto , Tutuian, Radu I. , Wong, Reuben K.

Neurogastroenterology & Motility | December 29, 2020 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/nmo.14058 Get It

Abstract Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty‐two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two‐years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.
How to select patients for antireflux surgery? The ICARUS guidelines (international consensus regarding preoperative examinations and clinical characteristics assessment to select adult patients for antireflux surgery)
Pauwels, Ans, Andrews, Christopher N. , Attwood, Stephen , Berrisford, Richard, Bisschops, Raf , Boeckxstaens, Guy E. , Bor, Serhat , Bredenoord, Albert J. , Cicala, Michele , Corsetti, Maura , Fornari, Fernando , Gyawali, C. Prakash , Hatlebakk, Jan, Johnson, Scott, Lerut, Toni, Lundell, Lars, Mattioli, Sandro , Omari, Taher , Pandolfino, John E. , Penagini, Roberto , Rice, Thomas W., Roelandt, Philip , Rommel, Nathalie , Savarino, Vincenzo , Vanuytsel, Tim , Vela, Marcelo F. , Watson, David I. , Tack, Jan , Lerut, Antoon , Tack, Jan , Gyawali, C P , Corsetti, M , Penagini, Roberto , Bisschops, Raf , Bor, Serhat , Omari, Taher , Boeckxstaens, Guy , Andrews, Christopher N , Boecxstaens, Veerle , Miwa, Hiroto , Nafteux, Philippe Robert , Sifrim, Daniel , Suzuki, Hidekazu , Tutuian, Radu I. , Zerbib, Frank

Gut | August 2, 2019 | Volume: 68 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1928-1941

10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318260 Get It

Objective Antireflux surgery can be proposed in patients with GORD, especially when proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use leads to incomplete symptom improvement. However, to date, international consensus guidelines on the clinical criteria and additional technical examinations used in patient selection for antireflux surgery are lacking. We aimed at generating key recommendations in the selection of patients for antireflux surgery. Design We included 35 international experts (gastroenterologists, surgeons and physiologists) in a Delphi process and developed 37 statements that were revised by the Consensus Group, to start the Delphi process. Three voting rounds followed where each statement was presented with the evidence summary. The panel indicated the degree of agreement for the statement. When 80% of the Consensus Group agreed (A+/A) with a statement, this was defined as consensus. All votes were mutually anonymous. Results Patients with heartburn with a satisfactory response to PPIs, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH), patients with oesophagitis Los Angeles (LA) grade B or higher and patients with Barrett’s oesophagus are good candidates for antireflux surgery. An endoscopy prior to antireflux surgery is mandatory and a barium swallow should be performed in patients with suspicion of a HH or short oesophagus. Oesophageal manometry is mandatory to rule out major motility disorders. Finally, oesophageal pH (±impedance) monitoring of PPI is mandatory to select patients for antireflux surgery, if endoscopy is negative for unequivocal reflux oesophagitis. Conclusion With the ICARUS guidelines, we generated key recommendations for selection of patients for antireflux surgery.
Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease: Update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group
Roman, Sabine , Gyawali, C. Prakash , Savarino, Edoardo , Wu, Justin C. Y. , Vela, Marcelo F. , Tatum, Roger P. , Fox, Mark , Pandolfino, John E. , Bredenoord, Albert J. , group, the GERD consensus, Tack, Jan , Penagini, Roberto , Mion, François , Bor, Serhat , Patel, Amit , Cicala, Michele , Bortoli, Nicola de , Azpiroz, Fernando , Roman, S , Gyawali, C P , Yadlapati, Rena , Zerbib, Frank , Tutuian, Radu I. , Sifrim, Daniel , Keller, Jutta , group, the GERD consensus, Patel, A , Penagini, Roberto , Tack, Jan , Bor, Serhat , de Bortoli, Nicola , Savarino, Edoardo

Neurogastroenterology & Motility | March 31, 2017 | Volume: 29 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1-15

10.1111/nmo.13067 Get It

AbstractBackgroundAn international group of experts evaluated and revised recommendations for ambulatory reflux monitoring for the diagnosis of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD).MethodsLiterature search was focused on indications and technical recommendations for GERD testing and phenotypes definitions. Statements were proposed and discussed during several structured meetings.Key ResultsReflux testing should be performed after cessation of acid suppressive medication in patients with a low likelihood of GERD. In this setting, testing can be either catheter‐based or wireless pH‐monitoring or pH‐impedance monitoring. In patients with a high probability of GERD (esophagitis grade C and D, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, peptic stricture, previous positive pH monitoring) and persistent symptoms, pH‐impedance monitoring should be performed on treatment. Recommendations are provided for data acquisition and analysis. Esophageal acid exposure is considered as pathological if acid exposure time (AET) is greater than 6% on pH testing. Number of reflux episodes and baseline impedance are exploratory metrics that may complement AET. Positive symptom reflux association is defined as symptom index (SI) >50% or symptom association probability (SAP) >95%. A positive symptom‐reflux association in the absence of pathological AET defines hypersensitivity to reflux.Conclusions and InferencesThe consensus group determined that grade C or D esophagitis, peptic stricture, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, and esophageal acid exposure greater >6% are sufficient to define pathological GERD. Further testing should be considered when none of these criteria are fulfilled.