Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI)

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is present in up to 50% of patients with voice disorders. Currently, there is no validated instrument that documents symptom severity in LPR. We developed the reflux symptom index (RSI), a self-administered nine-item outcomes instrument for LPR. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the RSI. For validity assessment, 25 patients with LPR were evaluated prospectively before and six months after b.i.d. treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Each patient completed the RSI as well as the 30-item voice handicap index (VHI). For reliability assessment, the study patients were given the RSI on two separate occasions before the initiation of treatment. Normative RSI data were derived from 25 age-matched and gender-matched controls taken from an existing database of asymptomatic individuals without any evidence of LPR. The mean RSI (+/- standard deviation) of patients with LPR improved from 21.2 (+/- 10.7) to 12.8 (+/- 10.0), and the mean VHI improved from 52.2 (+/- 24.7) to 41.5 (+/- 25.0) after 6 months of therapy (p = 0.001 and 0.065, respectively). Of the three VHI subscales (emotional, physical, functional), only the functional subscale improved significantly (p = 0.037). Patients who experienced a five point or better improvement in RSI were 11 times more likely to experience a five-point improvement in VHI (95% confidence interval = 1.7, 76.8). For reliability assessment, the first and second pretreatment RSIs were 19.9 (+/- 11.1) and 20.9 (+/- 9.6), respectively (correlation coefficient = 0.81, p < 0.001). The single-item correlation coefficients ranged from 0.41 to 0.91 (p < 0.05 for all items). The mean pretreatment RSI in patients with LPR was significantly higher than controls (21.2 versus 11.6; p < 0.001). The mean RSI of patients with LPR after 6 months of PPI therapy approached that of asymptomatic controls (p > 0.05). The RSI is easily administered, highly reproducible, and exhibits excellent construct and criterion-based validity.

Esophageal motor function in laryngopharyngeal reflux is superior to that in classic gastroesophageal reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in otolaryngology patients appears to be different from classic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In particular, esophagitis and its principal symptom, heartburn, considered the diagnostic sine qua non of GERD, are often absent in LPR. It has therefore been postulated that LPR patients have superior esophageal function. Esophageal acid clearance (EAC) is a measure of the ability of the esophagus to restore neutral pH after reflux events have occurred. It is considered an excellent overall measure of esophageal function. The mean EAC can be calculated from 24-hour pH monitoring data. A comparison of EAC in patients with GERD and LPR has not been previously reported. To compare the EAC of 1) patients with LPR alone, 2) patients with GERD alone, 3) patients with both LPR and GERD, and 4) patients without either LPR or GERD, we studied 200 otolaryngological patients who had undergone 24-hour double-probe (simultaneous pharyngeal and distal esophageal) pH monitoring, 50 in each group. The subgrouping of each patient was determined by previously established pH monitoring criteria. We defined GERD as abnormal esophageal reflux and LPR as abnormal pharyngeal reflux. The patients with GERD had a mean (+/-SD) EAC of 1.44 +/- 1.2 minutes, and those with LPR had a mean EAC of 1.00 +/- 1.00 minutes (p < .05). The patients with both GERD and LPR had a mean EAC of 1.53 +/- 1.01 minutes. The patients without reflux had a mean EAC of 0.53 +/- 0.38 minutes. We conclude that patients with LPR have significantly better EAC than those with GERD. These data suggest that patients with LPR have superior esophageal function. This finding may clarify our understanding of the differences in mechanisms, symptoms, and incidence of esophagitis in patients with LPR and GERD.

Transnasal esophagoscopy

BACKGROUND

Transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE), a new diagnostic technology, allows comprehensive, in-office examination of the esophagus without sedation.

OBJECTIVE

To report the authors' experience using TNE.

METHODOLOGY

Retrospective review of 100 consecutive patients undergoing TNE.

RESULTS

The most frequent indications for TNE were screening examination of the esophagus in reflux, globus, and/or dysphagia patients (n = 79), biopsy of a lesion in the laryngopharynx, trachea, or esophagus (n = 8), screening examination of the esophagus in head and neck cancer patients (n = 5), tracheoscopy and bronchoscopy (n = 4), and evaluation for an esophageal foreign body (n = 2). Four procedures were aborted secondary to a tight nasal vault. Significant findings were found in 44% (42/96). The most frequent findings were esophagitis (n = 19), Barrett's (n = 6), hiatal hernia (n = 4), and carcinoma (n = 5).

CONCLUSIONS

TNE is safe and well tolerated by patients with topical anesthesia alone. TNE may replace radiographic imaging of the esophagus in otolaryngology patients with reflux, globus, and dysphagia.

Ambulatory 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring: the importance of manometry

OBJECTIVE

Historically, manometry has been used for sphincter localization before ambulatory 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring to ensure accurate placement of the probes. Recently, direct-vision placement (DVP), using transnasal fiberoptic laryngoscopy (TFL), has been offered as an alternative technique. Presumably, DVP might be used to precisely place the proximal (pharyngeal) pH probe; however, using DVP, there appears to be no way to accurately position the distal (esophageal) probe. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of DVP for pH probe placement using manometric measurement as the gold standard.

METHODS

Thirty patients undergoing pH monitoring participated in this prospective study. Each subject underwent manometric examination of the esophagus to determine the precise location of the upper and lower esophageal sphincters (UES and LES). In addition, external anatomic landmarks were used to estimate interprobe distances. A physician blinded to the manometry results then placed a pH catheter using DVP so that the proximal probe was located just above the UES. The results were recorded and compared with those obtained by manometry.

RESULTS

Accurate DVP of the proximal pH probe was achieved in 70% (23 of 30) of the subjects. The use of external anatomic landmarks to estimate interprobe distance resulted in accurate positioning of the distal probe in only 40% (12 of 30) of the subjects. Using fixed interprobe distances of 15 cm and 20 cm, distal probe position accuracy was 3% (1 of 30) and 40% (12 of 30), respectively. Therefore, using DVP, the distal esophageal probe was in an incorrect position in 60% to 97% of subjects.

CONCLUSION

For double-probe pH monitoring, the proximal probe can be accurately positioned by DVP; however, there is no precise way to determine the interprobe distance required to correctly position the distal pH probe. Failure to accurately position the distal probe results in grossly inaccurate esophageal acid-exposure times. Thus, manometry is needed to ensure valid double-probe pH monitoring data.

Proton pump inhibitor resistance in the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVE

To describe the occurrence of relative proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drug resistance in the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective review was performed for 1053 consecutive adults undergoing double-probe (simultaneous esophageal and pharyngeal) pH testing in our laboratory. Two hundred five patients who had pH studies performed while taking at least a daily dose of PPI therapy were identified; 167 qualified for further analysis. The pH data was reviewed for the presence of abnormalities in either esophageal or pharyngeal acid exposure to evaluate drug efficacy.

RESULTS

Forty-four percent (74/167) of the study patients demonstrated abnormal levels of acid exposure. Results were further analyzed to compare failure rates based on different dosage regimens. Patients on once daily doses of PPI failed at a rate of 56%, with lower failure rates for higher-dose regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of LPR patients on PPI therapy demonstrate relative drug resistance.

The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS)

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of medical and surgical outcomes relies on methods of accurately quantifying treatment results. Currently, there is no validated instrument whose purpose is to document the physical findings and severity of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS).

METHODS

Forty patients with LPR confirmed by double-probe pH monitoring were evaluated pretreatment and 2, 4, and 6 months after treatment. The RFS was documented for each patient at each visit. For test-retest intraobserver reliability assessment, a blinded laryngologist determined the RFS on two separate occasions. To evaluate interobserver reliability, the RFS was determined by two different blinded laryngologists.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 50 years (+/- 12 standard deviation [SD]). Seventy-three percent were women. The RFS at entry was 11.5 (+/- 5.2 SD). This score improved to 9.3 (+/- 4.7 SD) at 2 months, 7.3 (+/- 5.5 SD) at 4 months, and 6.1 (+/- 5.2 SD) at 6 months of treatment (P <.001 with trend). The mean RFS for laryngologist no. 1 was 10.8 (+/- 4.1 SD) at the initial screening and 10.8 (+/- 4.0 SD) at the repeat evaluation (r = 0.95, P <.001). The mean RFS for laryngologist no. 2 was 11.1 (+/- 3.8 SD) at the initial screening and 10.9 (+/- 3.7 SD) at the repeat evaluation (r = 0.95, P <.001). The correlation coefficient for interobserver variability was 0.90 (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The RFS accurately documents treatment efficacy in patients with LPR. It demonstrates excellent inter- and intraobserver reproducibility.