A new pH catheter for laryngopharyngeal reflux: Normal values

Applying Lyon consensus criteria in the work-up of patients with extra-oesophageal symptoms - A multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) based on otolaryngologist's assessment of laryngoscopic findings remains contentious in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

AIMS

To evaluate GERD prevalence, applying Lyon 2.0 Consensus criteria, in patients with extra-oesophageal symptoms undergoing laryngoscopic examination and impedance-pH monitoring.

METHODS

In this retrospective assessment, we included 470 patients with extra-oesophageal symptoms, either isolated or combined with typical symptoms, who had been referred to six tertiary Italian Gastroenterology Units between January and December 2020. Of these, 274 underwent 24-h impedance-pH monitoring and laryngoscopy off PPI therapy. GERD diagnosis followed Lyon Consensus 2.0 criteria, incorporating mean nocturnal baseline impedance when pH-impedance monitoring was inconclusive.

RESULTS

Laryngoscopic examination revealed pathological findings (predominantly posterior laryngitis) in 71.2% (195/274). GERD was diagnosed in 29.2% (80/274) via impedance-pH monitoring. The prevalence of GERD in patients with positive or negative laryngoscopy was similar (32.3% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.075). No significant difference in proximal reflux occurrences was noted between positive and negative laryngoscopy groups (33.3% vs. 24.1%, p = 0.133). Laryngoscopy demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 78.8% and 32.0%, respectively, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 32.3% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 28.4%. In contrast, a threshold of four concurrent laryngoscopic signs, identified in only eight patients, demonstrated a PPV of 93.8% and a NPV of 73.6% (sensitivity 25.4%, specificity 99.2%).

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the limited diagnostic accuracy of laryngoscopy, emphasising the necessity of impedance-pH monitoring for confirming GERD diagnoses using Lyon 2.0 criteria in patients with suspected extra-oesophageal symptoms.

Mulberry Posterior Inferior Nasal Turbinate Is Associated with a Lower Pharyngeal pH Environment

OBJECTIVES

Mulberry-like changes of the posterior inferior nasal turbinate (MPINT) can lead to nasal obstruction. Extraesophageal reflux (EER) characterized by lower pH causes mucosal inflammation and therefore can contribute to sinonasal pathologies. No prior studies have objectively examined the possible association between acidic pH and MPINT formation. Therefore, this study is aimed to investigate the 24-h pharyngeal pH value in patients with MPINT.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case-control multi-center study.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with chronic EER symptoms were included in the study. They filled in questionnaires aimed at reflux and sinonasal symptoms (RSI®, SNOT-22) and underwent video endoscopy evaluating the laryngeal findings (RFS®) and the presence or absence of the MPINT. And, 24-h oropharyngeal pH monitoring was used to detect the acidic pH environment in the pharynx.

RESULTS

Out of the 55 analyzed patients, 38 had the MPINT (group 1), and in 17 patients, the MPINT was absent (group 2). Based on the pathological RYAN Score, in 29 (52.7%) patients, severe acidic pH drops were detected. In group 1, the acidic pH drops were diagnosed significantly more often (68.4%) compared with those in group 2 (p = 0.001). Moreover, in group 1, a significantly higher median total percentage of time spent below pH 5.5 (p = 0.005), as well as a higher median number of events lasting more than 5 min (p = 0.006), and higher median total number of events with pH drops (p = 0.017) were observed.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the MPINT was significantly more often present in patients with acidic pH events detected by 24-h oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Acidic pH in the pharynx might lead to MPINT formation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:62-68, 2024.

Clinical relevance of salivary pepsin detection in diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease subtypes

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is heterogeneous with a varied symptom spectrum and reflux profiles. Its definite diagnosis often requires invasive tools including endoscopy or reflux monitoring. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of salivary pepsin detection as a non-invasive screening tool to diagnose GERD of different subtypes.

Methods

A total of 77 patients with suspected GERD symptoms and 12 asymptomatic controls were analysed. All participants performed symptom evaluation, upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-dual pH probe monitoring. Saliva was self-collected across three different time points: at early fasting, postprandially, and at symptom occurrence. Salivary pepsin levels were measured via Peptest. The optimal threshold of salivary pepsin for diagnosing distal or proximal reflux was determined according to a receiver-operating characteristic curve.

Results

The average salivary pepsin concentration of suspected GERD patients was significantly higher than that of controls (100.63 [68.46, 141.38] vs 67.90 [31.60, 115.06] ng/mL, P = 0.044), although no difference was found among patients with different symptom spectrums. The distal reflux group had a higher average pepsin concentration than non-reflux patients (170.54 [106.31, 262.76] vs 91.13 [63.35, 127.63] ng/mL, P = 0.043), while no difference was observed between the distal reflux group and the proximal reflux group. The optimal cut-off value of salivary pepsin concentration for diagnosing pathological distal reflux was 157.10 ng/mL, which was higher than that for diagnosing pathological proximal reflux (122.65 ng/mL). The salivary pepsin concentration was significantly correlated with distal and proximal reflux parameters.

Conclusions

Salivary pepsin measurement can help in identifying true GERD with pathological distal reflux or proximal reflux, regardless of different symptom spectrums. A higher threshold should be applied for diagnosing distal reflux than for proximal reflux.

The role of pH-impedance monitoring in swallowing disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current evidence about the usefulness and the place of pH study in the management of patients with swallowing disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) are found in approximately 30% of patients with esophageal or oropharyngeal dysphagia. Patients with suspected GERD may benefit from gastrointestinal endoscopy and proton pump inhibitors according to guidelines. The diagnosis of LPR in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia is more controversial because there are no gold standard and diagnostic guidelines. The clinical diagnosis based on empirical therapeutic trial is a reasonable first-line strategy, but many dysphagic patients should not respond to treatment. These patients require hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH), which is the most effective examination providing important information on GERD and LPR features. At the HEMII-pH, GERD patients often report upright (daytime) and supine (nighttime) liquid acid esophageal events with significant esophageal distal acid exposure time. LPR patients have more frequently upright (daytime) gaseous weakly acid or nonacid pharyngeal reflux events without distal esophageal acid exposure abnormalities in many times. The features of reflux at the HEMII-pH may indicate a personalized treatment for dysphagic patients combining proton pump inhibitors, alginate/magaldrate or gastroprokinetic in cases of esophageal dysmotility.

SUMMARY

GERD and LPR are prevalent causes of dysphagia. The large number of reflux patients who do not respond to empirical treatment makes important the awareness of otolaryngologists about pH-impedance monitoring indication, features, and interpretation.

Clinical Update Findings about pH-Impedance Monitoring Features in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients

Purpose: The diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is commonly based on non-specific symptoms and findings and a positive response to an empirical therapeutic trial. The therapeutic response is, however, unpredictable, and many patients need pH-impedance monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. Methods: A review of the recent literature was conducted in PubMED, Scopus, and Embase about the pH-study features of LPR patients. A summary of last evidence was proposed. Results: The awareness of otolaryngologists about indications and interpretation of pH-impedance monitoring is low. The hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) is the most reliable examination determining the type and composition of hypopharyngeal reflux events (HRE) and the LPR features. The use of HEMII-pH is important to confirm the diagnosis in selected patients because non-specificity of symptoms and findings. There are no international consensus guidelines for the LPR diagnosis at the HEMII-pH. However, most studies supported the occurrence of >1 acid/weakly acid/nonacid HRE as diagnostic threshold. HREs are more frequently gaseous, weakly/nonacid compared with reflux events of gastroesophageal reflux. HREs occurred as daytime and upright, which does not support the value of double proton pump inhibitors or bedtime alginate. Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring is another approach reporting different sensitivity and specificity outcomes from HEMII-pH. The use of Ryan score for the LPR diagnosis at the oropharyngeal pH monitoring may be controversial regarding the low consideration of alkaline HREs. Conclusions: The awareness of otolaryngologists about HEMII-pH indication, features, and interpretation is an important issue regarding the high prevalence of LPR in outpatients consulting in otolaryngology. The HEMII-pH findings may indicate a more personalized treatment considering type and occurrence time of HREs.

Esophageal Pressure and Clinical Assessments in the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) might be associated with reflux symptoms, and its severity is correlated with the Reflux Symptoms Index. Diagnosis is often challenging because of a lack of accurate diagnostic tools. Although an association between LPRD and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) exists, the extent to which esophageal pressure changes in patients with LPRD with GERD has been unknown. Therefore, this study surveys the clinical assessments and extent of esophageal pressure changes in LRPD patients with various GERD severities, and compares esophageal sphincter pressures between ages, genders, and body mass index (BMI). This observational study assessed patients with LPRD and GERD. High-resolution esophageal manometry was used to gather data pertaining to the area pressure on the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES), and the correlation between such pressure and symptom severity was determined. We compared the esophageal pressure of different UES and LES levels in the following categories: gender, age, BMI, and GERD severity. We analyzed correlations between esophageal pressure and clinical assessments among 90 patients with throat globus with laryngitis with LPRD. LPRD was measured using laryngoscopy, and GERD was measured using esophagoscopy and 24 h PH monitoring. There were no significant differences in the clinical assessments among the four grades of GERD. The LPRD patients with serious GERD had a lower UES and LES pressure. The lowest pressure and longer duration of LES and UES were also observed among patients with LPRD of grade D GERD. No significant differences in UES and LES pressures among ages, genders, or BMIs were noted.

Laryngopharyngeal pH Monitoring in Patients With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Background: Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) often have irritating persistent dry cough. Possible correlations between dry cough and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) remain unclear.

Methods: 44 patients with IPF and 30 healthy individuals underwent 24 h laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring. Ryan index score was calculated. Patients’ demographic and clinical data were collected.

Results: 44 patients with IPF and 30 healthy individuals were included. The proportions of men and smokers were significantly higher in IPF group than control group (All p < 0.01). The average laryngopharyngeal pH value for 24 h was similar in the IPF (7.11 ± 0.08) group and control group (7.09 ± 0.06). According to the percentage duration of pH < 6.5, pH6.5–7.5, and pH > 7.5 in the overall measure duration, the patients were classified into three pH groups. In entire pH monitoring duration, the proportion of pH > 7.5 group in IPF patients was higher than control group; at upright position, the proportion of pH > 7.5 group in IPF patients was higher than control group; at supine position, the proportion of pH < 6.5 group in IPF patients was higher than control group (All p < 0.01). Seven patients had Ryan index score>9.41 at upright position. All patients had Ryan index score<6.79 at supine position. Four patients showed significantly higher and one patient had significantly lower average pH at coughing than the overall average pH (All p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Patients with IPF may have LPR. Basic and acidic LPR may likely occur at upright and supine position, respectively. Ryan index may not accurately reflect LPR in patients with IPF.

Normative Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Metrics for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review of 720 Healthy Individuals

OBJECTIVES

To review the normative data for acid, weakly acid, and nonacid proximal esophageal (PRE) and hypopharyngeal reflux (HRE) events in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) using ambulatory reflux monitoring.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

A literature search was conducted about the normative data for PRE and HRE on multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH), hypopharyngeal-esophageal MII-pH (HEMII-pH), or oropharyngeal pH monitoring using PICOTS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing, and setting) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statements. Outcomes reviewed included device characteristics, impedance/pH sensor placements, study duration, number/average and percentiles of PRE or HRE occurrence, and the event characteristics (pH, composition, and position).

RESULTS

Of 154 identified studies, 18 met criteria for analysis, including 720 healthy individuals. HEMII-pH, MII-pH, and oropharyngeal pH monitoring were used in 7, 6, and 5 studies, respectively. The definition and inclusion/exclusion criteria of healthy individuals varied substantially across studies, with 6 studies considering only digestive symptoms to exclude potential LPR patients. Substantial heterogeneity across studies was noted, including impedance/pH sensor placements/configurations and definitions of composition (liquid, gas, mixed) and type (acid, weakly acid, nonacid) of PRE/HRE. The 95th percentile thresholds were 10 to 73 events for PRE, 0 to 10 events for HRE on HEMII-pH, and 40 to 128 for events with pH <6.0 on oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Most HREs were nonacid and occurred upright. The mean HRE among healthy individuals was 1.

CONCLUSION

The low number of studies and the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, definitions, and characterization of PRE and HRE limit the establishment of consensual normative criteria for LPR on ambulatory reflux monitoring. Future large multicenter studies are needed.

Evaluation of Oropharyngeal pH-Monitoring in the Assessment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent disorder. The aim of the present retrospective cohort study was to evaluate oropharyngeal pH-monitoring using a novel scoring system for LPR.

METHODS

In a total of 180 consecutive patients with possible LPR, reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and transnasal esophagoscopy were carried out for further investigation.

RESULTS

In our series, 99 (55%) patients had severe LPR, 29 (16%) cases presented with moderate and 23 (13%) with mild severity, 9 (5%) subjects revealed neutral values, and 7 (4%) individuals were alkaline, while 13 (7%) patients had no LPR. In detecting LPR, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of oropharyngeal pH-monitoring was 95%, 93% and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring is a reliable tool in the assessment of LPR, but the pH graphs have to be precisely analyzed and interpreted in context with other validated diagnostic tests.

A novel scoring system for evaluating laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVE

Although laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common condition in daily practice, no gold standard exists for its diagnosis. The objective of this study was to establish a simple and reliable scoring system for evaluating LPR consisting of both subjective and objective criteria.

METHODS

This retrospective study includes 124 patients presenting with symptoms of LPR. In all patients, reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), oropharyngeal pH monitoring (PHM) and transnasal oesophagoscopy (TNE) were performed and rated in a special scoring system.

RESULTS

A Horvath Score of 4-5 for severe LPR was found in 76 patients (61%), a score of 2-3 for non-severe LPR in 38 patients (31%) and a score of 0-1 for non-existing LPR in 10 patients (8%) by combining the 4 validated diagnostic methods.

CONCLUSION

The proposed scoring system qualifies as a simple and reliable tool for evaluating LPR in daily practice, directly impacting patient management.

What is the truth about proton pump inhibitors?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the recent evidence and established scientific literature surrounding proton pump inhibitors in the context of laryngology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Proton pump inhibitors are often associated with gastroenterology; however, they also have a place in laryngology. Several laryngopharyngeal disorders are treated with proton pump inhibitors, though limited evidence regarding effectiveness, dosing and length of treatment exists. With the recent influx of articles reporting possible adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors, the appropriate prescribing of them has come under scrutiny. These reported risks include cancer, stroke, myocardial infarction, kidney disease and cognitive decline. It should be noted though that many of these studies by nature, are fraught with potential confounding. Regardless, clinicians ought to be aware of any risks associated with treatment regimens and prescribe the optimal dosage and duration.

SUMMARY

Proton pump inhibitor treatment should be dose-appropriate and for a limited duration. Concerning potential adverse effects, the limitations of retrospective cohort studies must be taken into consideration when reviewing the evidence.

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux and Atypical Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux and atypical manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease have a high economic and social burden in the United States. There is increasing research supporting the reflex theory and hypersensitivity syndrome underlying this disease pathophysiology. Novel diagnostic biomarkers have gained more traction in the search for a more reliable diagnostic tool, but further research is needed. Current standard-of-care treatment relies on proton pump inhibitor therapy. Antireflux surgery is usually not recommended. Neuromodulators and treatments targeting specific neuronal receptors are discussed. A diagnostic algorithm is proposed for the evaluation of laryngeal symptoms suspected to be related to extraesophageal reflux disease.

Is empirical treatment a reasonable strategy for laryngopharyngeal reflux? A contemporary review

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis and treatment of presumed laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) remain controversial. Empiric medication trials remain widespread for suspected LPR despite emerging evidence against proton pump inhibitor (PPI) safety and for pepsin as a mediator of LPR symptoms. Ongoing concerns exist related to inaccurate diagnosis, the cost and morbidity of potentially unnecessary PPI prescriptions, and availability and interpretation of objective reflux testing.

OBJECTIVES

To review contemporary evidence that does and does not support empiric medication trials for presumed LPR.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for literature about benefits, limitations and alternatives to empiric medication trial for LPR, in order to present both sides of this debate and identify best practices.

RESULTS

The majority of physicians perform prolonged empiric medication trial with PPIs for patients with suspected LPR. Because symptoms and signs of LPR are non-specific, empiric medication trials require exclusion of other conditions that can mimic LPR. Following a PPI empiric medication trial, over one-third of patients remain non-responders. The use of hypopharyngeal-oesophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) has benefits and limitations in objective diagnosis of LPR.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of PPIs for single-agent empiric medication trial does not account for possible non-responders with non-acid or mixed LPR. If LPR diagnosis remains uncertain, alginates can be added to PPI trials. HEMII-pH testing upfront is ideal for patients with suspected LPR, but not always practical; it is indicated when PPI and alginate empiric medication trials have failed or when comorbidities confuse the diagnosis. A more comprehensive, combination therapy empiric medication trial regimen may be needed.

Comprehensive analysis of acidic pharyngeal reflux before and after proton pump inhibitor treatment in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVES

The usefulness of pharyngeal pH monitoring in patients with symptoms attributed to laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been questioned. One problem is the uncertainty whether the pharyngeal pH monitoring captures the aspects of LPR which are responsible for symptoms. We aimed to gain more insight into this problem by performing a comprehensive analysis of acidic pharyngeal reflux before and after the treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with suspected LPR.

METHODS

We used simultaneous pharyngeal and distal esophageal 24-hour pH/impedance monitoring to establish the gastroesophageal origin of pharyngeal reflux, and an unbiased approach to analysis by evaluating a whole range of pharyngeal reflux acidity (pH < 6, pH < 5.5, pH < 5.0, pH < 4.5 and pH < 4.0).

RESULTS

PPI treatment substantially (by ~50%) improved the symptoms attributed to LPR. In contrast, PPI did not reduce the number of pharyngeal reflux episodes or duration of pharyngeal acid exposure at any pH level. This was also true in a subgroup of patients considered to be good responders to PPI (symptoms improvement by ~75%). Furthermore, good responders did not have more acidic pharyngeal reflux than the patients who were less responsive to PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI treatment did not reduce acidic pharyngeal reflux despite substantially improving the symptoms attributed to LPR. This may be because pharyngeal pH monitoring does not quantitatively capture the aspects of LPR responsible for symptoms or because acid causes the symptoms also by mechanisms other than LPR. Our results argue against the utility of pharyngeal pH monitoring in patients with suspected LPR.

Correlation of salivary and nasal lavage pepsin with MII-pH testing

OBJECTIVES

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common upper airway disease. Salivary pepsin is a proposed marker for LPR; however, the optimal time for collection of specimens for pepsin detection and pepsin's presence in the oral and nasal secretions relative to concurrent multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring are unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case-control study with an experimental design.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MII-pH testing for evaluation of LPR and asymptomatic control subjects were selected. Nasal lavage and saliva samples were collected in the clinic prior to MII-pH probe placement. Additional saliva samples were obtained an hour after each meal and upon waking the following morning. Nasal lavage and salivary pepsin were measured by ELISA.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients undergoing MII-pH testing and 13 reflux-free control patients were enrolled. Salivary pepsin was detected in 11 of 26 patients with suspected LPR and 0 of 13 controls. Pepsin was most frequently detected in the specimen provided upon waking at an average concentration of 186.9 ng/mL. A significant correlation was observed between salivary pepsin in waking samples to MII-pH measurements, including reflux bolus duration, and proximal and distal recumbent reflux episodes (P < 0.05). A significant correlation was also observed between salivary pepsin upon waking or sinus lavage and reflux symptom index (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Pepsin in salivary and nasal lavage samples demonstrated an association with MII-pH-documented LPR. Pepsin detection was most frequent in morning samples, supporting use of morning salivary pepsin levels as a potential noninvasive technique for LPR diagnosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Laryngoscope, 130:961-966, 2020.

Acidic Pharyngeal Reflux Does Not Correlate with Symptoms and Laryngeal Injury Attributed to Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is suspected when the symptoms are attributed to the penetration of acidic gastroesophageal reflux (GER) into the larynx. However, the relationships between the intensity of LPR and symptoms and laryngeal injury have not been elucidated. Several factors confound the study of LPR, namely pH is monitored in the pharynx (pharyngeal reflux) but the pharyngeal acidity (pH) required to induce laryngeal injury is unknown, the GER origin of pharyngeal acid is not always established, and a recent treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) confounds the analysis.

AIMS

We aimed to limit these confounding factors to analyze the relationship between LPR and symptoms and laryngeal injury.

METHODS

We used dual pharyngeal and distal esophageal 24-h pH/impedance monitoring to establish GER origin of pharyngeal reflux, we used an unbiased approach to analysis by evaluating a whole range of acidity (pH < 6, pH < 5.5, pH < 5.0, pH < 4.5 and pH < 4.0) in patients with suspected LPR without PPI for  > 30 days.

RESULTS

Pharyngeal reflux was (median[IQR]) 14[8-20.5] and 4[1.5-6.5] pharyngeal reflux episodes with pH < 6.0 and pH < 5.5, respectively. Pharyngeal reflux with pH < 5.0 was rare. Comprehensive analysis did not reveal any correlation between symptoms (reflux symptom index) or laryngeal injury (reflux finding score) and the number of pharyngeal reflux episodes or duration of pharyngeal acid exposure at any pH level.

CONCLUSION

Unbiased comprehensive approach did not reveal any relationship between acidic pharyngeal reflux and the symptoms or laryngeal injury attributed to LPR. Limited clinical usefulness of pharyngeal monitoring reported by others is unlikely due to confounding factors.

Esophageal Impedance-pH Monitoring and Pharyngeal pH Monitoring in the Diagnosis of Extraesophageal Reflux in Children

Various clinical symptoms are attributed to extraesophageal reflux disease (EERD). Multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) is considered to correlate symptoms with acid and nonacid gastroesophageal reflux (GER) events. Pharyngeal pH monitoring (Dx-pH) is considered to correlate the decrease in the pH level in the oropharynx with reported symptoms and to diagnose supraesophageal reflux. We aimed to assess the correlation between acid reflux episodes recorded by Dx-pH and GER detected via MII-pH in children with suspected EERD. The study enrolled 23 consecutive children (15 boys and 8 girls; median age 8.25 [range 3-16.5] years) with suspected EERD. MII-pH and Dx-pH were conducted concurrently in all patients. A total of 1228 reflux episodes were recorded by MII-pH. With the antimonic sensor placed inside the impedance probe, 1272 pH-only reflux episodes were recorded. Of these, 977 (76.81%) were associated with a retrograde bolus transit. Regarding GER, 630 full-column episodes extended to the most proximal pair of impedance sensors; 500 (83.33%) demonstrated an acidic character. The following acid reflux numbers were determined by the Dx-pH system: for pH < 4, n = 126; pH < 4.5, n = 136; pH < 5, n = 167; and pH < 5.5, n = 304, and for a decrease in pH > 10% relative to the baseline, n = 324. There was no significant correlation between the number of pharyngeal reflux episodes detected by Dx-pH and that of GERs identified by MII-pH. The proportion of oropharyngeal pH events that were temporally related to a GER episode increased with the extended pH criteria. The highest proportion was observed for a pH decrease of ≥10% from the baseline and did not exceed 5.2%. The application of the extended pH criteria in the Dx-pH system resulted in an increase in the number of diagnosed laryngopharyngeal refluxes; most were not temporally associated with GER episodes confirmed by MII-pH. Thus, the efficacy of the exclusive application of Dx-pH for supraesophageal gastric reflux diagnosis is uncertain.

Evaluation and Management of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: State of the Art Review

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature about the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature on LPR epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment was conducted. Using the PRISMA statement, 3 authors selected relevant publications to provide a critical analysis of the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The important heterogeneity across studies in LPR diagnosis continues to make it difficult to summarize a single body of thought. Controversies persist concerning epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. No recent epidemiologic study exists regarding prevalence and incidence with the use of objective diagnostic tools. There is no survey that evaluates the prevalence of symptoms and signs on a large number of patients with confirmed LPR. Regarding diagnosis, an increasing number of authors used multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring, although there is no consensus regarding standardization of the diagnostic criteria. The efficiency of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy remains poorly demonstrated and misevaluated by incomplete clinical tools that do not take into consideration many symptoms and extralaryngeal findings. Despite the recent advances in knowledge about nonacid LPR, treatment protocols based on PPIs do not seem to have evolved.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The development of multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring and pepsin and bile salt detection should be considered for the establishment of a multiparameter diagnostic approach. LPR treatment should evolve to a more personalized regimen, including diet, PPIs, alginate, and magaldrate according to individual patient characteristics. Multicenter international studies with a standardized protocol could improve scientific knowledge about LPR.

Reflux Finding Score (RFS) a Quantitative Guide for Diagnosis and Treatment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

The study was under taken to know the prevalence of reflux signs in an individuals with throat complaints on the basis of reflux finding score (RFS) and quantitatively assess the effect of treatment. A cross-sectional study was done to evaluate the presence of laryngo-pharyngeal reflux signs in patients visiting ENT clinic with throat or voice problems in central India. There were 80 patients included in the study from 2017 to 2018 individuals. They were questioned regarding their symptoms. Their pharyngeal findings on rigid 70° laryngoscopy were viewed and RFS was made. The patients were reviewed at monthly intervals. Laryngopharyngeal reflux changes were seen in 36 of the 80 patients (45%). The reflux was graded as per the reflux finding score. The score ranged from 7 to maximum of 17 out of 26 in the patients with LPRD. Majority of the patients the score decreased with lifestyle changes and pantaprazole twice daily. There was poor response in 5% (4) patients, who were then advised to undergo upper gastro intestinal endoscopy for further assessment. Laryngopharyngeal reflux has become a very common entity in urban lifestyle. On careful examination the signs can be picked and assessed with the RFS, which is a very useful tool to grade and reassess patient on subsequent follow up.

Quantifying Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Singers: Perceptual and Objective Findings

This study examines the relationship between laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) symptoms and oropharyngeal pH levels in singers. We hypothesized that reported symptoms would correlate with objective measures of pH levels from the oropharynx, including the number and total duration of reflux episodes. Twenty professional/semiprofessional singers completed the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and underwent oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Mild, moderate, or severe pH exposure was recorded during oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Correlations were performed to examine potential relationships between reflux symptoms and duration of LPR episodes. Symptom severity did not correlate with pH levels; however, we found a number of covariances of interest. Large sample sizes are necessary to determine if true correlations exist. Our results suggest that singers may exhibit enhanced sensitivity to LPR and may therefore manifest symptoms, even in response to subtle changes in pH. This study emphasizes the importance of sensitive and objective measures of reflux severity as well as consideration of the cumulative time of reflux exposure in addition to the number of reflux episodes.

Nissen fundoplication vs proton pump inhibitors for laryngopharyngeal reflux based on pH-monitoring and symptom-scale

AIM

To compare the outcomes between laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and type I hiatal hernia diagnosed by oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and symptom-scale assessment.

METHODS

From February 2014 to January 2015, 70 patients who were diagnosed with LPR and type I hiatal hernia and referred for symptomatic assessment, oropharyngeal pH-monitoring, manometry, and gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled in this study. All of the patients met the inclusion criteria. All of the patients underwent LNF or PPIs administration, and completed a 2-year follow-up. Patients’ baseline characteristics and primary outcome measures, including comprehensive and single symptoms of LPR, PPIs independence, and satisfaction, and postoperative complications were assessed. The outcomes of LNF and PPIs therapy were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

There were 31 patients in the LNF group and 39 patients in the PPI group. Fifty-three patients (25 in the LNF group and 28 in the PPI group) completed reviews and follow-up. Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring parameters were all abnormal with high acid exposure, a large amount of reflux, and a high Ryan score, associated reflux symptom index (RSI) score. There was a significant improvement in the RSI and LPR symptom scores after the 2-year follow-up in both groups (P < 0.05), as well as typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Improvement in the RSI (P < 0.005) and symptom scores of cough (P = 0.032), mucus (P = 0.011), and throat clearing (P = 0.022) was significantly superior in the LNF group to that in the PPI group. After LNF and PPIs therapy, 13 and 53 patients achieved independence from PPIs therapy (LNF: 44.0% vs PPI: 7.14%, P < 0.001) during follow-up, respectively. Patients in the LNF group were more satisfied with their quality of life than those in the PPI group (LNF: 62.49 ± 28.68 vs PPI: 44.36 ± 32.77, P = 0.004). Body mass index was significantly lower in the LNF group than in the PPI group (LNF: 22.2 ± 3.1 kg/m²vs PPI: 25.1 ± 2.9 kg/m², P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis of LPR should be assessed with oropharyngeal pH-monitoring, manometry, and the symptom-scale. LNF achieves better improvement than PPIs for LPR with type I hiatal hernia.

Analyzing the Area Under the Curve of Pharyngeal pH Probes in the Diagnosis of Reflux Disease

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the area under the curve (AUC) from 24-hour pharyngeal pH probes and evaluate this parameter as a predictor of disease severity for laryngopharyngeal reflux.

METHODS

Eighty patients met inclusion criteria of a completed 24-hour pharyngeal pH probe and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) questionnaire. The AUC was calculated below a pH threshold of 5.5 using the trapezoidal rule. The RSI and RYAN scores were correlated with AUC values, and nonparametric tests were used for comparisons.

RESULTS

The median AUC value was 18 007 pH-seconds with an interquartile range (IQR) of 63 156, the median RSI score was 21 (IQR = 16), and the median RYAN score was 15.3 (IQR = 78). There was a Spearman's correlation of .36 between the RSI scores and AUC values ( P = .001) and a moderate correlation between AUC values and RYAN scores (0.58, P < .001). An insignificant correlation of .19 between RYAN scores and RSI scores was observed ( P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

The AUC may be a useful objective value in establishing the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Prospective studies with larger patient populations are necessary to validate these findings and determine standardized thresholds for symptomatic patients.

Oropharyngeal pH Testing Does Not Predict Response to Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy in Patients with Laryngeal Symptoms

OBJECTIVES

Predicting response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with laryngeal symptoms is challenging. The Restech Dx-pH probe is a transnasal catheter that measures oropharyngeal pH. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prognostic potential of oropharyngeal pH monitoring to predict responsiveness to PPI therapy in patients with laryngeal symptoms.

METHODS

We conducted a physician-blinded prospective cohort study at a single academic institution between January 2013 and October 2014. Adult patients with Reflux Symptom Index scores (RSI) ≥13 off PPI therapy were recruited. Patients underwent video laryngoscopy and 24-h oropharyngeal pH monitoring, followed by an 8- to 12-week trial of omeprazole 40 mg daily. Prior to and following PPI therapy, patients completed various symptom questionnaires. The primary outcome was the association between PPI response and oropharyngeal pH metrics. PPI response was separated into three subgroups based on the post-treatment RSI score and % RSI response: non-response=RSI ≥13; partial response=post-treatment RSI <13 and change in RSI <50%; and complete response=post-treatment RSI <13 and change in RSI ≥50%. The primary analysis utilized a multinomial logistic regression controlling for the pre-treatment RSI score. A secondary analysis assessed the relationship between the change in RSI (post-pre) and oropharyngeal pH metrics via ordinary least square regression.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients completed the study and were included in final analysis. Symptom response to PPI therapy was as follows: 50% no response, 15% partial response, and 35% complete response. Non-responders had a higher pre-treatment RSI (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal acid exposure (below pH of 4.0, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and RYAN scores) between responder types. The secondary analysis noted a trend between lower PPI response and a greater total percent time below pH of 5.0 (P=0.03), upright percent time below pH of 5.0 (P=0.07), and RYAN supine (corrected; P=0.03), as well as an association between PPI response and greater decreases in the Anxiety Sensitivity Inventory (P<0.01), Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (P<0.01), and Negative Affect Scale (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Oropharyngeal pH testing did not predict laryngeal symptom response to PPI therapy. Contrary to hypothesis, our study signaled that the degree of oropharyngeal acid exposure is inversely related to PPI response. In addition, reduction in negative affect and psychological distress parallels PPI response.

Oropharyngeal Reflux Monitoring and Atypical Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been increasing since the 1990 s, with up to 27.8 % of people in North America affected by this disorder. The healthcare burden of patients who primarily have extra-esophageal manifestations of GERD (atypical GERD) is estimated to be 5 times that of patients with primarily heartburn and regurgitation due to lack of a gold standard diagnostic test, poor responsiveness to PPI therapy, and delay in recognition. Empiric twice daily PPI therapy for 1-2 months is currently considered the best diagnostic test, but due to poor responsiveness to PPIs in patients with atypical GERD in multiple randomized controlled trials, newer modes of diagnostic procedures such as oropharyngeal pH monitoring have gained significantly more traction. The utility of oropharyngeal pH monitoring systems such as Restech Dx-pH is currently limited due to lack of consensus on normal and abnormal cutoff values. Recent studies suggest its utility as a prognostic tool and its ability to predict responsiveness to medical and surgical therapy. However, routine use of oropharyngeal pH monitoring is still not widespread due to the lack of well-controlled prospective studies.

Diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: recommendations of the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología

Emerging concepts in the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and the constant technologic advances in the diagnosis and treatment of this clinical condition make it necessary to frequently review and update the clinical guidelines, recommendations, and official statements from the leading academic groups worldwide. The Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología (AMG), aware of this responsibility, brought together national experts in this field to analyze the most recent scientific evidence and formulate a series of practical recommendations to guide and facilitate the diagnostic process and efficacious treatment of these patients. The document includes algorithms, figures, and tables for convenient consultation, along with opinions on GERD management in sensitive populations, such as pregnant women and older adults.

Abilities of Oropharyngeal pH Tests and Salivary Pepsin Analysis to Discriminate Between Asymptomatic Volunteers and Subjects With Symptoms of Laryngeal Irritation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It has been a challenge to confirm the association between laryngeal symptoms and physiological reflux disease. We examined the ability of oropharyngeal pH tests (with the Restech Dx-pH system) and salivary pepsin tests (with Peptest) to discriminate between asymptomatic volunteers (controls) and subjects with a combination of laryngeal and reflux symptoms (laryngeal ± reflux).

METHODS

We performed a physician-blinded prospective cohort study of 59 subjects at a single academic institution. Adult volunteers were recruited and separated into 3 groups on the basis of GerdQ and Reflux Symptom Index scores: controls (n = 20), laryngeal symptoms (n = 20), or laryngeal + reflux symptoms (n = 19). Subjects underwent laryngoscopy and oropharyngeal pH tests and submitted saliva samples for analysis of pepsin concentration. Primary outcomes included abnormal acid exposure and composite (RYAN) score for oropharyngeal pH tests and abnormal mean salivary pepsin concentration that was based on normative data.

RESULTS

Complete oropharyngeal pH data were available from 53 subjects and complete salivary pepsin data from 35 subjects. We did not observe any significant differences between groups in percent of time spent below pH 4.0, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, or RYAN scores or percent of subjects with positive results from tests for salivary pepsin (53% vs 40% vs 75%; P = .50, respectively). The laryngeal + reflux group had a significantly higher estimated mean concentration of salivary pepsin (117.9 ± 147.4 ng/mL) than the control group (32.4 ± 41.9 ng/mL) or laryngeal symptom group (7.5 ± 11.2 ng/mL) (P = .01 and P = .04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

By using current normative thresholds, oropharyngeal pH testing and salivary pepsin analysis are not able to distinguish between healthy volunteers and subjects with a combination of laryngeal and reflux symptoms.

Esophageal testing: What we have so far

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. In the last few decades, new technologies have evolved and have been applied to the functional study of the esophagus, allowing for the improvement of our knowledge of the pathophysiology of GERD. High-resolution manometry (HRM) permits greater understanding of the function of the esophagogastric junction and the risks associated with hiatal hernia. Moreover, HRM has been found to be more reproducible and sensitive than conventional water-perfused manometry to detect the presence of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. Esophageal 24-h pH-metry with or without combined impedance is usually performed in patients with negative endoscopy and reflux symptoms who have a poor response to anti-reflux medical therapy to assess esophageal acid exposure and symptom-reflux correlations. In particular, esophageal 24-h impedance and pH monitoring can detect acid and non-acid reflux events. EndoFLIP is a recent technique poorly applied in clinical practice, although it provides a large amount of information about the esophagogastric junction. In the coming years, laryngopharyngeal symptoms could be evaluated with up and coming non-invasive or minimally invasive techniques, such as pepsin detection in saliva or pharyngeal pH-metry. Future studies are required of these techniques to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy and usefulness, although the available data are promising.

Extra-esophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease and asthma: understanding this interplay

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition that develops when there is reflux of stomach contents, which typically manifests as heartburn and regurgitation. These esophageal symptoms are well recognized; however, there are extra-esophageal manifestations of GERD, which include asthma, chronic cough, laryngitis and sinusitis. With the rising incidence of asthma, there is increasing interest in identifying how GERD impacts asthma development and therapy. Due to the poor sensitivity of endoscopy and pH monitoring, empiric therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is now considered the initial diagnostic step in patients suspected of having GERD-related symptoms. If unresponsive, diagnostic testing with pH monitoring off therapy and/or impedance/pH monitoring on therapy, may be reasonable in order to assess for baseline presence of reflux with the former and exclude continued acid or weakly acid reflux with the latter tests. PPI-unresponsive asthmatics, without overt regurgitation, usually have either no reflux or causes other than GERD. In this group, PPI therapy should be discontinued. In those with GERD as a contributing factor acid suppressive therapy should be continued as well as optimally treating other etiologies requiring concomitant treatment. Surgical fundoplication is rarely needed but in those with a large hiatal hernia, moderate-to-severe reflux by pH monitoring surgery might be helpful in eliminating the need for high-dose acid suppressive therapy.

Changing Patterns in Reflux Care

Objectives:

To compare patterns of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) diagnosis and management over time by American Broncho-Esophagological Association (ABEA) members.

Methods:

American Broncho-Esophagological Association members completed an online questionnaire focused on LPR evaluation and management in 2012; responses were compared to a 2002 survey.

Results:

Four hundred twenty-six members were emailed, of whom 63 (14.8%) responded. In both time periods, throat clearing, heartburn, globus, arytenoid edema, and erythema were considered highly related to LPR. Management in 2012 differed as respondents more commonly treated LPR empirically (82.6% vs 56.3%, P = .036). When adjunctive testing was ordered, dual pH probe were less frequently utilized in 2012 (61.5% vs 78.3%, P = .029). Either esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) was used more often in 2012 compared to EGD alone in 2002 (63.8% vs 42.4%, P = .020). Dual pH probe was regarded as the most sensitive and specific evaluation for LPR in both surveys, while the perceived sensitivity/specificity of EGD in 2012 was half that reported in 2002 (28.0% vs 56.3%, P = .003).

Conclusion:

Attitudes of ABEA members toward empiric treatment and adjunctive tests have changed between 2012 and 2002. While pH probe testing remains the test regarded as most sensitive/specific for evaluation of LPR, empiric management has become more common. Meanwhile, EGD use has increased despite a significant decrease in its perceived sensitivity/specificity.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and non-esophageal cancer

The association of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and esophageal cancer is well known. The carcinogenic properties of the gastroduodenal contents may also lead to cancer in target organs for GERD especially considering that they do not have intrinsic protective mechanisms as found in the esophagus. This review focuses on the putative relation between GERD and non-esophageal cancer. Most of the papers reviewed are far from ideal to prove the relationship of extra-esophageal cancer and GERD since a small number of patients is presented, most do not control cases based on tobacco usage and obesity, and the diagnosis of GERD is variable, not always from an objective measurement such as pH monitoring but relying on symptoms in most reports. Nevertheless, head and neck and lung cancer have a growing incidence parallel to GERD and a shift towards non-smoking, female gender and adenocarcinoma (compared to squamous cell carcinoma) is arising, similar to the example of esophageal cancer with the exception of the female gender.

Correlation between oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and esophageal pH-impedance monitoring in patients with suspected GERD-related extra-esophageal symptoms

BACKGROUND

24-hour esophageal pH-impedance (pH-MII) is not totally reliable for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Oropharyngeal (OP) pH-monitoring with the Dx-pH probe may detect LPR better. The correlation between these two techniques is not thoroughly established. Aim of this study is to examine the correlation between OP pH-metry and esophageal pH-MII monitoring.

METHODS

Thirty-six consecutive patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease-related extra-esophageal symptoms were evaluated using 24-h OP-pH and concomitant esophageal pH-MII monitoring. OP events were defined as: drop in pH below thresholds of 5.5, 5.0, 4.5, 4.0 or drop in pH of at least 10% from a running baseline. Temporal relationship between OP and esophageal reflux events and outcomes of the two tests were evaluated.

KEY RESULTS

2394 refluxes were detected by pH-MII; of these only 120 were detected also by OP Dx-probe. On the other hand, the proportion of OP-pH events which were temporally related to an episode of distal reflux ranged from 0% to 17%, depending on the proximal pH criteria used. In 8/36 patients both tests were pathological, while in 10/36 they were both normal; 14/36 patients had pathological OP reflux, but a normal pH-MII test; 4/36 patients had pathological pH-MII, but a normal OP reflux.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The correlation between OP pH-metry and pH-MII was weak. At present, the absence of a reliable gold standard for the diagnosis of LPR and the uncertain etiology of the pharyngeal pH alterations make it difficult to decide which is the most reliable technique for the diagnosis of true LPR.

Diagnostic work-up of GERD

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is frequently diagnosed by symptoms and good response to acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors. Further work up is required when the diagnosis of GERD is uncertain, for alarm symptoms, PPI-refractoriness, and often for extraesophageal presentations. Useful tools include endoscopy for mucosal assessment and reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH) to quantify reflux burden. Objective documentation of pathological reflux is mandatory prior to anti-reflux surgery. In some patients, symptoms that can be attributed to GERD may have other causes; in these patients, testing that excludes GERD helps direct the diagnostic and treatment efforts to other causes.

Development of the reflux finding score for infants and its observer agreement

OBJECTIVE

It is hypothesized that laryngeal edema is caused by laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) (ie, gastroesophageal reflux extending into the larynx and pharynx). The validated reflux finding score (RFS) assesses LPR disease in adults. We, therefore, aimed to develop an adapted RFS for infants (RFS-I) and assess its observer agreement.

STUDY DESIGN

Visibility of laryngeal anatomic landmarks was assessed by determining observer agreement. The RFS-I was developed based on the RFS, the found observer agreement, and expert opinion. An educational tutorial was developed which was presented to 3 pediatric otorhinolaryngologists, 2 otorhinolaryngologists, and 2 gastroenterology fellows. They then scored videos of flexible laryngoscopy procedures of infants who were either diagnosed with or specifically without laryngeal edema.

RESULTS

In total, 52 infants were included with a median age of 19.5 (0-70) weeks, with 12 and 40 infants, respectively, for the assessment of the laryngeal anatomic landmarks and the assessment of the RFS-I. Overall interobserver agreement of the RFS-I was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.45). Intraobserver agreement ranged from moderate to excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.50-0.87).

CONCLUSION

A standardized scoring instrument was developed for the diagnosis of LPR disease using flexible laryngoscopy. Using this tool, only moderate interobserver agreement was reached with a highly variable intraobserver agreement. Because a valid scoring system for flexible laryngoscopy is lacking up until now, the RFS-I and flexible laryngoscopy should not be used solely to clinically assess LPR related findings of the larynx, nor to guide treatment.

Airway pH monitoring in patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea using the Dx-pH oropharyngeal probe: preliminary report of a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) episodes and pH values in patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) using the Dx-pH oropharyngeal probe.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary medical centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty patients with complaint of snoring or suspected OSA were prospectively enrolled to receive full nocturnal polysomnography (PSG). The patients were divided into 2 groups: a simple snorers group if the Respiratory Disturbance Index (RDI) was < 5 and an OSA group if the RDI was ≥ 5.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The patients simultaneously received Dx-pH oropharyngeal probe monitoring for 12 h from about 6 pm to 6 am of the next day. The number of LPR events was recorded if the nadir of rapid pH drops was below pH 5.0 and 5.5. The difference of LPR events between the two groups and the difference of LPR events between awake and sleep periods in each group were analysed, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 18 (45%) patients diagnosed as OSA with a mean RDI of 28.7, and 22 patients (55%) diagnosed as simple snorers. Between 2 groups, there were no significant differences in the LPR events and pH values during the awake period, sleep period or overall recording period. Comparison of the LPR events and minimum pH values between the awake period and the sleep period revealed there were no significant differences in either group.

CONCLUSION

Using the new sensitive Dx-pH oropharyngeal probe with PSG, we found that OSA does not correlate with a higher incidence of LPR episodes.

A Study to Draw a Normative Database of Laryngopharynx pH Profile in Chinese

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To draw a normative database of laryngopharynx pH profile in Chinese subjects.

METHODS

Normal volunteers were recruited from "www.Ganji.com" and People's hospital between May 2008 and December 2009. The Restech pH Probes were calibrated in pH 7 and pH 4 buffer solutions according to the manufacturer's instructions. Each volunteer was asked to wear the device for a 24-hour period and was encouraged to participate in normal daily activities.

RESULTS

The healthy volunteers consisted of 20 males and 9 females with a median age of 23 years (interquartile range, 21 to 32 years). The 95th percentiles for % total times at pH < 4, pH < 4.5, pH < 5.0 and pH < 5.5 for the oropharynx pH catheter were 0.06%, 1.01%, 7.23% and 27.34%, respectively. The 95th percentile for number of reflux events within the 24-hour period at pH < 4, pH < 4.5, pH < 5.0 and pH < 5.5 were 2.0, 18.0, 107.5 and 284.5, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to systematically assess the degree of reflux detected by the new pH probe in healthy asymptomatic Chinese volunteers and to report normative values in Chinese people. Using an oropharyngeal pH catheter to monitor laryngopharyngeal reflux indicated that in healthy Chinese, reflux should be considered normal if the percent time at pH less than 4.5 is no more than 1%.

Pharyngeal pH alone is not reliable for the detection of pharyngeal reflux events: A study with oesophageal and pharyngeal pH-impedance monitoring

BACKGROUND

Pharyngeal pH probes and pH-impedance catheters have been developed for the diagnosis of laryngo-pharyngeal reflux.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the reliability of pharyngeal pH alone for the detection of pharyngeal reflux events.

METHODS

24-h pH-impedance recordings performed in 45 healthy subjects with a bifurcated probe for detection of pharyngeal and oesophageal reflux events were reviewed. Pharyngeal pH drops to below 4 and 5 were analysed for the simultaneous occurrence of pharyngeal reflux, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and swallows, according to impedance patterns.

RESULTS

Only 7.0% of pharyngeal pH drops to below 5 identified with impedance corresponded to pharyngeal reflux, while 92.6% were related to swallows and 10.2 and 13.3% were associated with proximal and distal gastro-oesophageal reflux events, respectively. Of pharyngeal pH drops to below 4, 13.2% were related to pharyngeal reflux, 87.5% were related to swallows, and 18.1 and 21.5% were associated with proximal and distal gastro-oesophageal reflux events, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that pharyngeal pH alone is not reliable for the detection of pharyngeal reflux and that adding distal oesophageal pH analysis is not helpful. The only reliable analysis should take into account impedance patterns demonstrating the presence of pharyngeal reflux event preceded by a distal and proximal reflux event within the oesophagus.

Optimal treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux is defined as the reflux of gastric content into larynx and pharynx. A large number of data suggest the growing prevalence of laryngopharyngeal symptoms in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, laryngopharyngeal reflux is a multifactorial syndrome and gastroesophageal reflux disease is not the only cause involved in its pathogenesis. Current critical issues in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux are many nonspecific laryngeal symptoms and signs, and poor sensitivity and specificity of all currently available diagnostic tests. Although it is a pragmatic clinical strategy to start with empiric trials of proton pump inhibitors, many patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux have persistent symptoms despite maximal acid suppression therapy. Overall, there are scant conflicting results to assess the effect of reflux treatments (including dietary and lifestyle modification, medical treatment, antireflux surgery) on laryngopharyngeal reflux. The present review is aimed at critically discussing the current treatment options in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux, and provides a perspective on the development of new therapies.

Chronic cough: an update

Cough persisting beyond 8 weeks (ie, chronic cough) is one of the most common reasons for an outpatient visit. A protracted cough can negatively affect one's quality of life by causing anxiety, physical discomfort, social isolation, and personal embarrassment. Herein, the anatomy and physiology of the cough reflex are reviewed. Upper airway cough syndrome, asthma, eosinophilic bronchitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease account for most chronic cough after excluding smoking, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use, and chronic bronchitis. Many patients have more than one reason for chronic cough. Treating the underlying cause(s) resolves cough in most instances. There are some coughs that seem refractory despite an extensive work-up. The possibility of a hypersensitive cough reflex response has been proposed to explain these cases. Several clinical algorithms to evaluate chronic cough are presented.

Posterior laryngitis: a disease with different aetiologies affecting health-related quality of life: a prospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

Laryngo-pharyngeal reflux (LPR) is assumed to be the most common cause of posterior laryngitis (PL). Since LPR is found in healthy subjects, and PL patients are not improved by acid-reducing therapy, other aetiologies to PL must be considered. The aims of this study in PL were to investigate the prevalence of acid reflux in the proximal oesophagus and functional gastrointestinal symptoms, to analyse motilin levels in plasma, and to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) before and after treatment.

METHODS

Forty-six patients (26 women), with verified PL, median age 55 (IQR 41-68) years, were referred to oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy and 24-h pH monitoring. Plasma motilin was analysed. The 36-item Short-Form questionnaire was completed at inclusion and at follow-up after 43±14 months, when also the Visual Analogue Scale for Irritable Bowel Syndrome was completed. Values were compared to controls. Treatment and relief of symptoms were noted from medical records.

RESULTS

Thirty-four percent had proximal acid reflux and 40% showed signs of distal reflux. Ninety-four percent received acid-reducing treatment, with total relief of symptoms in 17%. Patients with reflux symptoms had lower plasma motilin levels compared to patients without reflux symptoms (p = 0.021). The HRQOL was impaired at inclusion, but improved over time. Patients, especially men, had more functional gastrointestinal symptoms than controls.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that a minority of patients with PL has LPR and is cured by acid-reducing therapy. Disturbed plasma motilin levels and presence of functional gastrointestinal symptoms are found in PL. The impaired HRQOL improves over time.

Extra-esophageal manifestations of GERD: who responds to GERD therapy?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease that is defined as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms. In addition to the esophageal manifestations of heartburn and regurgitation, the role of GERD in causing extra-esophageal symptoms, such as laryngitis, asthma, cough, chest pain, and dental erosions, is increasingly recognized with renewed interest. Due to the poor sensitivity of endoscopy and pH monitoring, and the poor specificity of laryngoscopy, empiric therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is now considered the initial diagnostic step in patients suspected of having GERD-related symptoms. In those who are unresponsive to such therapy, other diagnostic testing such as impedance/pH monitoring may be reasonable in order to exclude continued acid or weakly acid reflux. Recent data suggest that patients with extra-esophageal symptoms who have concomitant typical symptoms, moderate-sized hiatal hernia and moderate reflux on pH testing may respond better to acid suppressive therapy. This group only accounts for 20-30 % of patients commonly referred for suspected GERD. PPI-unresponsive patients usually have causes other than GERD for their extra-esophageal signs and symptoms and continued PPI therapy in this group is not recommended.

Preoperative diagnostic workup before antireflux surgery: an evidence and experience-based consensus of the Esophageal Diagnostic Advisory Panel

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a very prevalent disorder. Medical therapy improves symptoms in some but not all patients. Antireflux surgery is an excellent option for patients with persistent symptoms such as regurgitation, as well as for those with complete symptomatic resolution on acid-suppressive therapy. However, proper patient selection is critical to achieve excellent outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

A panel of experts was assembled to review data and personal experience with regard to appropriate preoperative evaluation for antireflux surgery and to construct an evidence and experience-based consensus that has practical application.

RESULTS

The presence of reflux symptoms alone is not sufficient to support a diagnosis of GERD before antireflux surgery. Esophageal objective testing is required to physiologically and anatomically evaluate the presence and severity of GERD in all patients being considered for surgical intervention. It is critical to document the presence of abnormal distal esophageal acid exposure, especially when antireflux surgery is considered, and reflux-related symptoms should be severe enough to outweigh the potential side effects of fundoplication. Each testing modality has a specific role in the diagnosis and workup of GERD, and no single test alone can provide the entire clinical picture. Results of testing are combined to document the presence and extent of the disease and assist in planning the operative approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, upper endoscopy, barium esophagram, pH testing, and manometry are required for preoperative workup for antireflux surgery. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are required to evaluate the diagnostic and therapeutic benefit of new technologies, such as oropharyngeal pH testing, multichannel intraluminal impedance, and hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance, in the context of patient selection for antireflux surgery.

Approach to the patient with presumed extraoesophageal GERD

Reflux related cough, asthma and laryngitis are frequently encountered and are considered part of extraoesophageal syndromes. The diagnosis of extraoesophageal reflux is difficult due to the lack of gold standard diagnostic criteria. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and esophageal pH monitoring are inadequate diagnostic tools for due to poor sensitivity and specificity. For this reason, empirical PPI therapy is recommended as an initial approach to diagnose and treat the potential underlying cause of these symptoms in patients without alarm symptoms. Diagnostic testing with esophageal pH and/or impedance monitoring and esophageal motility testing is usually reserved for those who continue to be symptomatic despite a trial of therapy with PPIs. Recent developments have increased our understanding of this difficult to treat group of patients but more research into reflux related extraoesophageal symptoms are needed to better diagnose and treat this group.

An oropharyngeal pH monitoring device to evaluate patients with chronic laryngitis

BACKGROUND

Diagnostics for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) are suboptimal because of limited sensitivity. We performed in vitro and in vivo studies to systematically assess the performance characteristics of an oropharyngeal pH probe.

METHODS

In vitro studies compared the oropharyngeal probe with a standard pH catheter in liquid and aerosolized solutions, pH 1-7. The accuracy of measurements, deviation from target pH, and time to equilibrium pH were determined. Simultaneous distal esophageal pH measurements were obtained in 11 patients with GERD. Oropharyngeal and distal esophageal reflux parameters were measured for controls (n = 20), patients with GERD (n = 17), and patients with chronic laryngitis (n = 10).

KEY RESULTS

In the liquid phase, at pH 4-5, the oropharyngeal probe had less deviation from the target value than the standard catheter; deviation in the vapor phase was similar (0.4 pH units). Median (interquartile) time to reach equilibrium pH was significantly (P < 0.001) faster with the oropharyngeal than the standard probe. In comparing simultaneous distal esophageal pH characteristics, 96% of recordings with the new and standard probes were in agreement to within ± 1.0 pH unit; 71% of recordings were in agreement within ± 0.5 pH units. Patients with chronic laryngitis had significantly higher levels of oropharyngeal acid exposure at pH <4, <5, and <6, in the upright position than patients with GERD or controls (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Oropharyngeal pH monitoring appears to be more sensitive than traditional pH monitoring in evaluation of patients with extraesophageal reflux. It is a promising tool in evaluation of this difficult group of patients.