Efficacy of esophageal impedance/pH monitoring in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease, on and off therapy

Endoscopic Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases that occurs secondary to failure of the antireflux barrier system, resulting in the frequent and abnormal reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. GERD is diagnosed in routine clinical practice based on the classic symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation. However, a subset of patients with atypical symptoms can pose challenges in diagnosing GERD. An esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the most common initial diagnostic test used in the assessment for GERD, although half of these patients will not have any positive endoscopic findings suggestive of GERD. The advanced endoscopic techniques have improved the diagnostic yield of GERD diagnosis and its complications, such as Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. These newer endoscopic tools can better detect subtle irregularities in the mucosa and vascular structures. The management options for GERD include lifestyle modifications, pharmacological therapy, and endoscopic and surgical interventions. The latest addition to the armamentarium is the minimally invasive endoscopic interventions in carefully selected patients, including the electrical stimulation of the LES, Antireflux mucosectomy, Radiofrequency therapy, Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication, Endoscopic Full-Thickness plication (GERDx™), and suturing devices. With the emergence of these advanced endoscopic techniques, it is crucial to understand their selection criteria, advantages, and disadvantages.

Latin American consensus on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be challenging given varying symptom presentations, and complex multifactorial pathophysiology. The gold standard for GERD diagnosis is esophageal acid exposure time (AET) measured by pH-metry. A variety of additional diagnostic tools are available. The goal of this consensus was to assess the individual merits of GERD diagnostic tools based on current evidence, and provide consensus recommendations following discussion and voting by experts.

METHODS

This consensus was developed by 15 experts from nine countries, based on a systematic search of the literature, using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) methodology to assess the quality and strength of the evidence, and provide recommendations regarding the diagnostic utility of different GERD diagnosis tools, using AET as the reference standard.

KEY RESULTS

A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial is appropriate for patients with heartburn and no alarm symptoms, but nor for patients with regurgitation, chest pain, or extraesophageal presentations. Severe erosive esophagitis and abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI are clearly indicative of GERD. Esophagram, esophageal biopsies, laryngoscopy, and pharyngeal pH monitoring are not recommended to diagnose GERD. Patients with PPI-refractory symptoms and normal endoscopy require reflux monitoring by pH or pH-impedance to confirm or exclude GERD, and identify treatment failure mechanisms. GERD confounders need to be considered in some patients, pH-impedance can identify supragrastric belching, impedance-manometry can diagnose rumination.

CONCLUSIONS

Erosive esophagitis on endoscopy and abnormal pH or pH-impedance monitoring are the most appropriate methods to establish a diagnosis of GERD. Other tools may add useful complementary information.

Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0

The Lyon Consensus provides conclusive criteria for and against the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adjunctive metrics that consolidate or refute GERD diagnosis when primary criteria are borderline or inconclusive. An international core and working group was assembled to evaluate research since publication of the original Lyon Consensus, and to vote on statements collaboratively developed to update criteria. The Lyon Consensus 2.0 provides a modern definition of actionable GERD, where evidence from oesophageal testing supports revising, escalating or personalising GERD management for the symptomatic patient. Symptoms that have a high versus low likelihood of relationship to reflux episodes are described. Unproven versus proven GERD define diagnostic strategies and testing options. Patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD) are studied using prolonged wireless pH monitoring or catheter-based pH or pH-monitoring off antisecretory medication, while patients with conclusive GERD evidence (proven GERD) and persisting symptoms are evaluated using pH-impedance monitoring while on optimised antisecretory therapy. The major changes from the original Lyon Consensus criteria include establishment of Los Angeles grade B oesophagitis as conclusive GERD evidence, description of metrics and thresholds to be used with prolonged wireless pH monitoring, and inclusion of parameters useful in diagnosis of refractory GERD when testing is performed on antisecretory therapy in proven GERD. Criteria that have not performed well in the diagnosis of actionable GERD have been retired. Personalisation of investigation and management to each patient's unique presentation will optimise GERD diagnosis and management.

Functional gastrointestinal disorders. Overlap syndrome Clinical guidelines of the Russian Scientific Medical Society of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterological Scientific Society of Russia

.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Clinical Use of Esophageal Physiologic Testing

Esophageal symptoms are common and may indicate the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), structural processes, motor dysfunction, behavioral conditions, or functional disorders. Esophageal physiologic tests are often performed when initial endoscopic evaluation is unrevealing, especially when symptoms persist despite empiric management. Commonly used esophageal physiologic tests include esophageal manometry, ambulatory reflux monitoring, and barium esophagram. Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) has recently been approved for the evaluation of esophageal pressure and dimensions using volumetric distension of a catheter-mounted balloon and as an adjunctive test for the evaluation of symptoms suggestive of motor dysfunction. Targeted utilization of esophageal physiologic tests can lead to definitive diagnosis of esophageal disorders but can also help rule out organic disorders while making a diagnosis of functional esophageal disorders. Esophageal physiologic tests can evaluate obstructive symptoms (dysphagia and regurgitation), typical and atypical GERD symptoms, and behavioral symptoms (belching and rumination). Certain parameters from esophageal physiologic tests can help guide the management of GERD and predict outcomes. In this ACG clinical guideline, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process to describe performance characteristics and clinical value of esophageal physiologic tests and provide recommendations for their utilization in routine clinical practice.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Functional Heartburn: Expert Review

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A diagnosis of functional heartburn should be considered when retrosternal burning pain or discomfort persists despite maximal (double-dose) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy taken appropriately before meals during a 3-month period. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: A diagnosis of functional heartburn requires upper endoscopy with esophageal biopsies to rule out anatomic and mucosal abnormalities, esophageal high-resolution manometry to rule out major motor disorders, and pH monitoring off PPI therapy (or pH-impedance monitoring on therapy in patients with proven gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD]), to document physiologic levels of esophageal acid exposure in the distal esophagus with absence of reflux-symptom association (ie, negative symptom index and symptom association probability). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Overlap of functional heartburn with proven GERD is diagnosed according to Rome IV criteria when heartburn persists despite maximal PPI therapy in patients with history of proven GERD (ie, positive pH study, erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, or esophageal ulcer), and pH impedance testing on PPI therapy demonstrates physiologic acid exposure without reflux-symptom association (ie, negative symptom index and symptom association probability). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: PPIs have no therapeutic value in functional heartburn, the exception being proven GERD that overlaps with functional heartburn. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Neuromodulators, including tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tegaserod, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists have benefit as either primary therapy in functional heartburn or as add-on therapy in functional heartburn that overlaps with proven GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Based on available evidence, acupuncture and hypnotherapy may have benefit as monotherapy in functional heartburn, or as adjunctive therapy combined with other therapeutic modalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Based on available evidence, anti-reflux surgery and endoscopic GERD treatment modalities have no therapeutic benefit in functional heartburn and should not be recommended.

Can Impedance-pH Testing on Medications Reliably Identify Patients with GERD as Defined by Pathologic Esophageal Acid Exposure off Medications?

INTRODUCTION

Impedance-pH testing (MII-pH) while patients are on acid suppression medications is frequently used to evaluate persistent reflux symptoms. The aim of this study was to determine whether MII-pH on medications can reliably identify patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) as defined by pathologic esophageal acid exposure off medications, and to determine if there is a threshold of total reflux episodes on medications where pH testing off medications may be unnecessary.

METHODS

A retrospective review identified all patients between 1/2010 and 4/2017 who underwent MII-pH testing on PPI medications and subsequently had pH testing off medications. GERD was defined on pH testing off medications by an abnormal DeMeester Score (DMS) and on MII-pH on medications by ≥ 48 total reflux episodes. Patients with an abnormal DMS by MII-pH on medications were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 71 patients, (22 males; 49 females), with a median age of 52 years. Based on ≥ 48 total reflux episodes by MII-pH testing on medications, 42 patients (59%) had GERD. When tested off medications, an abnormal DMS was present in 44 patients (62%). Among those with GERD based on impedance testing on medications, 31% did not have GERD based on pH testing off medications. Further, in the 29 patients with ≤ 48 total reflux episodes on MII-pH (normal test), 15 patients (52%) had pathologic acid exposure off medications. When there were > 73 reflux events with MII-pH on medications, all 15 patients in our series had pathologic acid exposure on pH testing off medications.

CONCLUSION

MII-pH testing on medications in patients with refractory GERD symptoms does not reliably correlate with a diagnosis of GERD as defined by pathologic esophageal acid exposure off medications. The commonly used abnormal MII-pH test value of ≥ 48 total reflux episodes is not validated and should not be used. However, in our series, patients with > 73 total reflux episodes had a high likelihood of having pathologic acid exposure off medications. Overall, the preferred strategy to evaluate patients with persistent GERD symptoms on acid suppression therapy should be pH testing off medications.

Development and Validation of a Mucosal Impedance Contour Analysis System to Distinguish Esophageal Disorders

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Diagnostic testing for chronic esophageal disorders relies on histopathology analysis of biopsies or uncomfortable transnasal catheters or wireless pH monitoring, which capture abnormal intraluminal refluxate. We therefore developed a balloon mucosal impedance (MI) catheter system that instantly detects changes in esophageal mucosal integrity during endoscopy over a long segment of the esophagus. We performed a prospective study to evaluate the ability of a balloon-incorporated MI catheter to detect and evaluate esophageal disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 69 patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy with or without wireless pH monitoring. Patients were classified as having GERD (erosive esophagitis or abnormal pH; n = 24), EoE (confirmed with pathology analysis of tissues from both distal and proximal esophagus; n = 21), or non-GERD (normal results from esophagogastroduodenoscopy and pH tests; n = 24). Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used to compare the accuracy of balloon MI in diagnosis. Probabilities of assignment to each group (GERD, non-GERD, or EoE) were estimated using multinomial logistic regression. Association between MI patterns and diagnoses were validated using data from patients seen at 3 separate institutions.

RESULTS

MI pattern along the esophageal axis differed significantly (P < .01) among patients with GERD, EoE, and non-GERD. Patients with non-GERD had higher MI values along all measured segments. The MI pattern for GERD was easily distinguished from that of EoE: in patients with GERD, MI values were low in the distal esophagus and normalized along the proximal esophagus, whereas in patients with EoE, measurements were low in all segments of the esophagus. Intercept and rate of rise of MI value (slope) as distance increased from the squamocolumnar junction identified patients with GERD with an AUC = 0.67, patients with EoE with an AUC = 0.84, and patients with non-GERD with an AUC = 0.83 in the development cohort. One patient had an adverse event (reported mild chest pain after the procedure) and was discharged from the hospital without further events.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a balloon MI catheter system that instantly detects changes in esophageal mucosal integrity during endoscopy and found it to be safe and able to identify patients with GERD, EoE, or non-GERD. We validated our findings in a separate cohort for patients. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03103789.

Wireless 24, 48, and 96 Hour or Impedance or Oropharyngeal Prolonged pH Monitoring: Which Test, When, and Why for GERD?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

pH monitoring technologies are routinely utilized in practice to further evaluate symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). This is a review of the recent literature of the available pH monitoring technology and creates an algorithm in the diagnostic work up of a patient with GERD or LPR.

RECENT FINDINGS

The catheter-free wireless pH monitor traditionally collects data for 48 h. Recent studies have found that extending to 96 h can be helpful in patients with conflicting results on the first 2 days of the study. In addition, 96 h can allow for testing both on and off of PPI therapy. The oropharyngeal monitoring device is a newer technology that is designed to aid in the diagnoses of LPR. There are limitations with this technology as there is no universal abnormal cutoff and some studies have suggested a poor correlation between multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) and the oropharyngeal monitoring device. MII-pH has recently developed two additional parameters, the measurement of three 10-min nighttime periods and the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index, both of which may increase accuracy of testing. Each of these technologies can provide unique data regarding acid reflux exposure in the esophagus and oropharynx. The wireless pH monitor performed off of PPI therapy can help to establish or exclude the diagnosis of GERD. For those patients with refractory symptoms on PPI, MII-pH study can be performed while on therapy and provides data regarding the response to treatment. Oropharyngeal pH monitoring is being utilized in some practices to aid in diagnosis of LPR, but the scientific validity is controversial.

Diagnostic Efficacy of 24-hr Esophageal pH Monitoring in Patients with Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND:

Gastric reflux is one of the most important causes of the referral of patients to the internal clinic, which in some cases causes problems for patients due to resistance to common treatments. Therefore, timely diagnosis and treatment of this group of patients are very important.

AIM:

The purpose of the present study was to determine the off-proton pump inhibitor (off-PPI) 24 h pH-impedance analyses in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) attending to Taleghani Hospital since 2009 to 2017.

METHODS:

In this observational descriptive-comparative off-PPI study, 572 patients with refractory GERD who were referred to Taleghani Hospital in Tehran from 2009 to 2017 were selected, and the results of 24 h pH Impedance analysis were then assessed.

RESULTS:

The results of 24h pH-impedance indicated that 7% of cases belonged to Pure Acid Reflux followed by weakly Acid (1%), non-acid (0.3%), mixed & gas (5.2%), functional (58.4%) and oesophagal hypersensitivity (28%). Furthermore, weakly acid plus acid was also found to be 8% and Weakly Acid + Acid + Non-Acid were determined as 8.3%.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings suggested that nearly more than half of the patients with refractory GERD would have a functional disorder in the 24h pH-impedance analysis.

Esophageal Mucosal Impedance Patterns Discriminate Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Patients With GERD

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is a challenge to make a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) because its symptoms and histologic features overlap with those of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). A minimally invasive device was recently developed to detect mucosal impedance (MI) that measures epithelial integrity during upper endoscopy. We aimed to quantify MI along the esophagus and identify patterns that differentiated patients with and without GERD from those with EoE, and determine whether MI values and patterns are sufficient to identify patients with EoE using histologic findings as a reference.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 91 patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms referred for diagnostic testing for GERD and EoE from 2012 through 2014 (discovery set). During the first endoscopy, MI measurements were obtained at 2, 5, and 10 cm from the squamocolumnar junction. GERD was confirmed by ambulatory pH tests, and histologic analyses of biopsies were used to confirm EoE. We then used statistical modeling to identify MI patterns along the esophagus (at 10 cm, 5 cm, and 2 cm) that associated with GERD vs EoE. We validated our findings in a prospective cohort of 49 patients undergoing elective upper endoscopy for dysphagia, from 2015 through 2016, testing the ability of MI patterns to identify patients with vs. without EoE.

RESULTS

We found patients with EoE to have a unique MI pattern, with low values along the esophageal axis. MI measurements at 5 cm could discern patients with normal vs abnormal mucosa with 83% sensitivity and 79% specificity, and patients with EoE vs GERD with 84% sensitivity and 70% specificity; these measurements differentiated the patient populations with the highest level of accuracy of any of the 6 measurements tested. In the validation study, a rater using the esophageal MI pattern identified patients with EoE with 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity.

CONCLUSION

We identified and validated a pattern of MI along the esophagus that can identify patients with EoE vs normal mucosa or GERD with high levels of sensitivity.

Symptom association probability does not reliably distinguish functional heartburn from reflux hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Symptom association probability (SAP) is thought to distinguish reflux hypersensitivity from functional disorders. A diagnosis of hypersensitive oesophagus (SAP-positive) indicates that gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the cause of continued symptoms.

AIM

To conduct an analysis of pH and symptom criteria that lead to a diagnosis of SAP-positivity METHODS: We calculated SAP for 205 patients with GERD symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy who underwent endoscopy with wireless pH monitoring from 2007 to 2014. Patients were divided into three groups: pH-negative with no oesophagitis (n = 45), pH-positive with no oesophagitis (n = 130), and patients with oesophagitis (n = 30). We constructed a 2 × 2 table of symptom and reflux event association and quantified the number of 2-minute intervals for each of the 2 × 2 variables that distinguished SAP-positive from SAP-negative. In a separate cohort of 58 patients who had undergone anti-reflux surgery, we evaluated the effects of pre-surgery SAP.

RESULTS

The difference in symptom association parameters that led to a diagnosis of an SAP-positive was small (2.98% in oesophagitis-positive; 1.56% in oesophagitis-negative/pH-positive; 0.48% in oesophagitis-negative/pH-negative). In the pH-negative/oesophagitis-negative group, a difference of 0.48% led to a diagnosis of hypersensitivity. There was significant variability in SAP values between day 1 and day 2 of pH testing in all groups, with the greatest in the oesophagitis-positive group, despite objective evidence for reflux (27% in oesophagitis-positive, 19% pH-positive/oesophagitis-negative, and 7% in pH-negative/oesophagitis-negative). Pre-surgery SAP was not associated with response to anti-reflux surgery.

CONCLUSION

In PPI-refractory GERD, SAP cannot accurately distinguish reflux hypersensitivity from functional oesophageal symptoms.

Image-enhanced endoscopy is specific for the diagnosis of non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the performance characteristics of image-enhanced endoscopy with i-Scan or narrow band imaging (NBI) in patients with non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) compared to controls without heartburn.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Image-enhanced endoscopic findings of vascularity at the squamocolumnar junction, distal esophageal micro-erosions, and non-round pit pattern at the squamocolumnar junction were assessed in cases (heartburn not responsive to PPIs, positive results on validated GERD questionnaire, no esophageal erosions, esophageal biopsies with histologic evidence of GERD (basal cell hyperplasia, elongation of papillae and dilation of intercellular spaces all required)) and in controls (no GERD symptoms or esophageal erosions).

RESULTS

Twenty cases and 60 controls were compared. The pre-defined features were more common in cases vs.

CONTROLS

vascularity RR = 4.9 (95% CI: 2.4-10.0), specificity = 86.7%; micro-erosions RR = 9.7 (3.6-26.5), specificity = 93.3%; non-round pit pattern RR = 2.4 (1.7-3.3), specificity = 60.0%; combination of vascularity and micro-erosions RR = 30.0 (4.1-220), specificity = 98.3%. These differences were consistent with both i-Scan and NBI.

CONCLUSIONS

Image-enhanced endoscopic findings of vascularity and micro-erosions were very specific for non-erosive GERD. Image-enhanced endoscopy may be useful in real-time diagnosis of non-erosive GERD when patients undergo upper endoscopy for heartburn. The relative utility of image-enhanced endoscopy vs. pH-impedance monitoring, based on efficacy, cost and patient acceptance, requires additional study.

Critical appraisal of Rome IV criteria: hypersensitive esophagus does belong to gastroesophageal reflux disease spectrum

The Rome IV Committee introduced a major change in the classification of functional gastrointestinal disorders, proposing a more restrictive definition of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It was suggested that hypersensitive esophagus (HE) may sit more firmly within the functional realm. It was suggested that GERD diagnosis should be based upon abnormal acid exposure time (AET) only, implying no advantage of impedance-pH over pH monitoring. Symptom association probability (SAP), symptom index (SI) and heartburn relief with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy were regarded as unreliable, whereas a lack of response to PPI was considered as evidence of functional heartburn. These assumptions are contradicted by numerous studies showing the clinical relevance of weakly acidic refluxes and the diagnostic utility of SAP, SI and new impedance parameters, namely the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and the mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI). The PSPW index and MNBI provide significant diagnostic advantage, particularly in patients with normal AET who can be classified as HE when both parameters are abnormal, even though SAP and SI are negative. Visceral pain modulators are recommended by the Rome IV Committee despite scanty evidence of efficacy, but a positive outcome with medical or surgical anti-reflux treatment has been reported by several studies of HE patients. Therefore, we believe that patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn should be investigated by means of impedance-pH monitoring with analysis of PSPW index and MNBI: such an approach provides accurate identification of HE cases, who remain, in our opinion, within the realm of GERD and should be treated accordingly.

Symptom Index or Symptom Association Probability?: A Closer Look at Symptom Association in Suspected GERD Patients

BACKGROUND

Symptom index (SI) and symptom association probability (SAP) are popular methods used to measure symptom association in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

AIM

To investigate whether these 2 methods yield similar results in analysis of both typical and atypical GERD symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Combined impedance-pH reflux studies of 1471 patients tested for possible GERD symptoms from January 2010 to May 2015 were reviewed. SI and SAP were analyzed for typical and atypical GERD symptoms including heartburn, regurgitation, indigestion, chest pain, cough, and throat clearing (TC). Patients who reported <3 symptom events during the 24-hour monitoring period were excluded. ON and OFF proton pump inhibitor (PPI) groups were reviewed. Kappa coefficient (κ) rather than simple percentage was used to measure the agreement rate. Simple percentage agreement is a less reliable method compared with κ.

RESULTS

On PPI therapy, there was a good κ between SI and SAP for regurgitation (0.68) and indigestion (0.64), moderate for heartburn (0.48) and chest pain (0.51), and poor for cough (0.33) and TC (0.29). There was a lower κ OFF PPI therapy for heartburn (0.36), regurgitation (0.44), and indigestion (0.50). But there was no difference in κ for chest pain (0.61), cough (0.29), and TC (0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

SI and SAP showed better agreement for patients with typical GERD symptoms and even better when tested ON PPI. A better symptom association method is needed for patients with atypical GERD symptoms.

Esophageal chemical clearance and baseline impedance values in patients with chronic autoimmune atrophic gastritis and gastro-esophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

The factors influencing new markers of gastro-esophageal reflux disease detected by impedance-pH monitoring - mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index - need to be evaluated.

AIM

To compare endoscopy-negative heartburn with chronic autoimmune atrophic gastritis (CAAG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

24 patients with CAAG, 25 with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and 25 with functional heartburn (FH) were included. In all patients the main impedance-pH monitoring parameters were calculated.

RESULTS

CAAG and NERD patients had a number of reflux events (non-acid ones being more common among the former group) which was higher than that found in FH (p<0.001). MNBI decreased progressively in FH (>3000Ohm), CAAG (>2000Ohm) and NERD (<1000Ohm) patients (p=0.0046). The PSPW index was similar between CAAG and NERD patients but significantly lower in comparison to FH (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with CAAG have evidence of non-acid reflux based on the high number of reflux events and confirmed by low values of MNBI and PSPW index. MNBI is a strong marker of acid/non-acid reflux-induced mucosal damage, whereas the PSPW index can reliably discriminate patients with reflux from those with FH, independently of the acidity of refluxate.

Impedance-pH Monitoring for Diagnosis of Reflux Disease: New Perspectives

Heartburn is the most specific symptom of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In clinical practice, heartburn relief by a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial does suffice to confirm GERD. However, an objective diagnosis of GERD is required before anti-reflux endoscopic or surgical interventions, independently from PPI response. Thus, since normal findings at upper endoscopy are detected in the majority of patients with heartburn, reflux monitoring is often required. When traditional catheter-based or wireless pH tests are used, reflux episodes are conventionally identified by pH drops below 4.0 units. Combined impedance-pH monitoring has the advantage to provide a comprehensive assessment of both physical and chemical properties of refluxate and the distinction between acid and weakly acidic refluxes, both proven to cause heartburn. Unfortunately, the conventional impedance-pH parameters, namely acid exposure time and number of reflux events, are characterized by suboptimal diagnostic sensitivity, and the reliability of symptom-reflux association indexes remains questionable. Therefore, novel impedance parameters, namely the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and the mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), have recently been proposed in order to achieve a better diagnostic yield. In fact, they proved to be highly accurate in distinguishing reflux-related from reflux-unrelated heartburn, off- as well as on-PPI therapy. Currently, manual review of impedance-pH tracings is needed because of the modest accuracy of available software tools for automated analysis. PSPW index and MNBI are highly applicable and reproducible, and their calculation requires a few additional minutes during the manual review of impedance-pH tracings. So far, we believe that PSPW index and MNBI are ready for prime time and should become part of the standard analysis of impedance-pH tracings for GERD diagnosis in patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn.

Impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity distinguishes hypersensitive esophagus from functional heartburn

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitive esophagus (HE) is defined by endoscopy-negative heartburn with a normal acid exposure time but positive symptom association probability (SAP) and/or symptom index (SI) on impedance-pH monitoring, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) responsiveness. Functional heartburn (FH) is distinguished by negative SAP/SI and PPI refractoriness. The clinical value of SAP and SI has been questioned. We aimed to investigate whether impairment of chemical clearance and of mucosal integrity, expressed by the postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and the mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), characterize HE independently of SAP and SI.

METHODS

Impedance-pH tracings from PPI-responsive endoscopy-negative patients, 125 with nonerosive reflux disease and 108 with HE, distinguished by an abnormal and a normal acid exposure time, and from 70 patients with FH were retrospectively selected and blindly reviewed.

RESULTS

The mean PSPW index and MNBI were significantly lower in nonerosive reflux disease (30 %, 1378 Ω) than in HE (51 %; 2274 Ω) and in both of them as compared with FH (76 %; 3445 Ω) (P = 0.0001). Both the PSPW index (adjusted odds ratio 0.863, P = 0.001) and the MNBI (adjusted odds ratio 0.998, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of HE; with their combined assessment, the area under the curve on receiver operating characteristic analysis was 0.957. SAP and/or SI was positive in 67 of the 108 HE patients (62 %), whereas the PSPW index and/or MNBI was abnormal in 99 of the 108 HE patients (92 %; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

HE is characterized by impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity, which explains the increased reflux perception. When SAP and SI afford uncertain results, the PSPW index and MNBI should be analyzed.

The added diagnostic value of postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance in refractory reflux disease studied with on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring

BACKGROUND

On-therapy impedance-pH monitoring in proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) yielded conflicting results. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) in PPI-refractory heartburn.

METHODS

On-therapy impedance-pH tracings from 189 consecutive patients with PPI-refractory heartburn were blindly reviewed. Patients were subdivided into refractory reflux esophagitis (RRE), healed reflux esophagitis (HRE), non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), and functional heartburn (FH) according to endoscopic and conventional impedance-pH findings. The diagnostic accuracy of PSPW index and MNBI in separating NERD from FH was assessed with receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis. Objectively documented persistent reflux remission at 3-year follow-up in 53 patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication served to evaluate PSPW index and MNBI as independent predictors of PPI-refractory GERD confirmed by positive surgical outcome.

KEY RESULTS

Median PSPW index and MNBI values were significantly lower in 39 RRE (16%; 1145 Ω) than in 41 HRE (25%; 1741 Ω) and in 68 NERD (29%; 2374 Ω) patients, and in all three GERD subgroups compared to 41 FH cases (67%; 3488 Ω) (P<.008). At ROC analysis, comparing NERD to FH the area under the curve was 0.886 with PSPW index and 0.677 with MNBI (P=.005). PSPW index was an independent predictor of PPI-refractory GERD (odds ratio 0.6983, P=.012).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

At on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring, PSPW index and MNBI efficiently distinguish PPI-refractory NERD from FH. The PSPW index represents an independent predictor of PPI-refractory GERD.

Management of refractory typical GERD symptoms

The management of patients with refractory GERD (rGERD) is a major clinical challenge for gastroenterologists. In up to 30% of patients with typical GERD symptoms (heartburn and/or regurgitation), acid-suppressive therapy does not provide clinical benefit. In this Review, we discuss the current management algorithm for GERD and the features and management of patients who do not respond to treatment (such as those individuals with an incorrect diagnosis of GERD, inadequate PPI intake, persisting acid reflux and persisting weakly acidic reflux). Symptom response to existing surgical techniques, novel antireflux procedures, and the value of add-on medical therapies (including prokinetics and reflux inhibitors) for rGERD symptoms are discussed. Pharmaceutical agents targeting oesophageal sensitivity, a condition that can contribute to symptom generation in rGERD, are also discussed. Finally, on the basis of available published data and our expert opinion, we present an outline of a current, usable algorithm for management of patients with rGERD that considers the timing and diagnostic use of pH-impedance monitoring on or off PPI, additional diagnostic tests, the clinical use of baclofen and the use of add-on neuromodulators (tricyclic agents and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors).

The Proton Pump Inhibitor Non-Responder: A Clinical Conundrum

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a highly prevalent chronic condition where in stomach contents reflux into the esophagus causing symptoms, esophageal injury, and subsequent complications. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) remain the mainstay of therapy for acid suppression. Despite their efficacy, significant proportions of GERD patients are either partial or non-responders to PPI therapy. Patients should be assessed for mechanisms that can lead to PPI failure and may require further evaluation to investigate for alternative causes. This monograph will outline a diagnostic approach to the PPI non-responder, review mechanisms associated with PPI failure, and discuss therapeutic options for those who fail to respond to PPI therapy.

Parameters on esophageal pH-impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

pH-impedance monitoring detects acid and nonacid reflux events, but little is known about which parameters predict outcomes of different management strategies. We evaluated a cohort of medically and surgically managed patients after pH-impedance monitoring to identify factors that predict symptom improvement after therapy.

METHODS

In a prospective study, we followed up 187 subjects undergoing pH-impedance testing from January 2005 through August 2010 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri (mean age, 53.8 ± 0.9 y; 70.6% female). Symptom questionnaires assessed dominant symptom intensity (DSI) and global symptom severity (GSS) at baseline and at follow-up evaluation. Data collected from pH impedance studies included acid exposure time (AET), reflux exposure time (RET) (duration of impedance decrease 5 cm above lower esophageal sphincter, reported as the percentage of time similar to AET), symptom reflux correlation (symptom index and symptom association probability [SAP]), and the total number of reflux events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine factors associated with changes in DSI and GSS after therapy.

RESULTS

Of the study subjects, 49.7% were tested on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and 68.4% were managed medically. After 39.9 ± 1.3 months of follow-up, DSI and GSS scores decreased significantly (P < .05). On univariate analysis, an abnormal AET predicted decreased DSI and GSS scores (P ≤ .049 for each comparison); RET and SAP from impedance-detected reflux events (P ≤ .03) also were predictive. On multivariate analysis, abnormal AET consistently predicted symptomatic outcome; other predictors included impedance-detected SAP, older age, and testing performed off PPI therapy. Abnormal RET, acid symptom index, or SAP, and numbers of reflux events did not independently predict a decrease in DSI or GSS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing pH-impedance monitoring off PPI therapy best predicts response to antireflux therapy. Key parameters with predictive value include increased AET, and correlation between symptoms and reflux events detected by impedance.

Mucosal impedance discriminates GERD from non-GERD conditions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Current diagnostic tests for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are suboptimal and do not accurately and reliably measure chronicity of reflux. A minimally invasive device has been developed to assess esophageal mucosal impedance (MI) as a marker of chronic reflux. We performed a prospective longitudinal study to investigate MI patterns in patients with GERD and common nonreflux conditions, to assess MI patterns before and after treatment with proton pump inhibitors and to compare the performance of MI and wireless pH tests.

METHODS

We evaluated MI in 61 patients with erosive esophagitis, 81 with nonerosive but pH-abnormal GERD, 93 without GERD, 18 with achalasia, and 15 with eosinophilic esophagitis. MI was measured at the site of esophagitis and at 2, 5, and 10 cm above the squamocolumnar junction in all participants. MI was measured before and after acid suppressive therapy, and findings were compared with those from wireless pH monitoring.

RESULTS

MI values were significantly lower in patients with GERD (erosive esophagitis or nonerosive but pH-abnormal GERD) or eosinophilic esophagitis than in patients without GERD or patients with achalasia (P < .001). The pattern of MI in patients with GERD differed from that in patients without GERD or patients with eosinophilic esophagitis; patients with GERD had low MI closer to the squamocolumnar junction, and values increased axially along the esophagus. These patterns normalized with acid suppressive therapy. MI patterns identified patients with esophagitis with higher levels of specificity (95%) and positive predictive values (96%) than wireless pH monitoring (64% and 40%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a prospective study using a prototype device, measurements of MI detect GERD with higher levels of specificity and positive predictive values than wireless pH monitoring. Clinical Trials.gov, Number: NCT01556919.

Diagnostic Utility of Impedance-pH Monitoring in Refractory Non-erosive Reflux Disease

Background/Aims

Approximately one-third of non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) patients are refractory to proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and face a therapeutic challenge. Therefore, it is important to differentiate between pathological and non-pathological reflux utilizing multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) to analyze symptom-reflux association and diagnose true NERD versus hyper-sensitive esophagus (HE) and functional heartburn (FH). Herein, we evaluated the diagnostic yield of MII-pH in refractory NERD and sub-classified it based on quantity and quality of acid/non-acid reflux and reflux-symptom association.

Methods

Sixty symptomatic NERD patients on twice daily PPI for > 2 months were prospectively evaluated by MII-pH. Distal and proximal refluxes, bolus exposure time (BET), esophageal acid exposure time, symptom index (SI) and symptom association probability (SAP) were measured.

Results

Thirty-two (53%) patients had BET > 1.4% (MII-pH positive-true NERD), while 28 (47%) had BET < 1.4% (MII-pH negative NERD) where SI and SAP were negative in 15/60 (25%; categorized as FH) and SI or SAP were positive in 13/60 (22%; identified as HE). Thirty-eight (63%) patients reported significant SI or SAP parameters where > 80% of symptoms were associated with non-acid reflux. The number of distal refluxes in true NERD versus FH or HE were significantly different, but not between FH and HE.

Conclusions

Approximately 60% of refractory PPI NERD patients had positive reflux-symptom association, primarily due to non-acid reflux. Nearly half of NERD patients on PPI had normal MII-pH monitoring, sub-divided further into FH and HE equally.

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.

Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: advances and treatment

'Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease' is one of the most common misnomers in the area of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The term implies reflux as the underlying etiology despite unresponsiveness to aggressive proton pump inhibitor therapy. The term should be replaced with 'refractory symptoms.' We must acknowledge that in many patients symptoms of reflux often overlap with non-GERD causes such as gastroparesis, dyspepsia, hypersensitive esophagus and functional disorders. Lack of response to aggressive acid suppressive therapy often leads to diagnostic testing. In majority of patients these tests are normal. The role of non-acid reflux in this group is uncertain and patients should not undergo surgical fundoplication based on this parameter. In patients unresponsive to acid suppressive therapy GERD is most commonly not causal and a search for non-GERD causes must ensue.

Acid-based parameters on pH-impedance testing predict symptom improvement with medical management better than impedance parameters

OBJECTIVES

pH-impedance testing detects reflux events irrespective of pH, but its value in predicting treatment outcome is unclear. We prospectively evaluated subjects treated medically after pH-impedance testing to determine predictors of symptom improvement.

METHODS

Subjects referred for pH-impedance testing completed questionnaires in which dominant symptoms and global symptom severity (GSS) were recorded. Acid-reflux parameters (acid-exposure time, AET; symptom association by Ghillebert probability estimate, GPE; symptom index, SI) and impedance reflux parameters (reflux-exposure time, RET; number of reflux events; GPE and SI with impedance data) were extracted. Symptoms and GSS were prospectively reevaluated after medical therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined predictors of GSS improvement following medical management.

RESULTS

Over 5 years, 128 subjects (mean 53.3±1.3 years, 66.4% female; typical symptoms 57.0%, 53.9% tested on therapy) underwent pH-impedance testing and subsequent medical therapy for reflux symptoms, and completed required questionnaires. On follow-up 3.35±0.14 years later, mean GSS declined by 45.0%, with 42.2% patients reporting ≥50% GSS improvement. On univariate analysis, total AET, AET≥4.0%, and GPE for all reflux events predicted both linear and ≥50% GSS improvement, but RET and number of reflux events did not. On multivariate analysis, controlling for testing on or off therapy, only AET (P=0.003) and GPE for all reflux events (P=0.029) predicted GSS improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Acid-based reflux parameters offer greater value over impedance-based nonacid-reflux parameters in predicting symptomatic responses to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Our findings support conducting pH-impedance studies off PPI therapy to maximize clinical utility in predicting outcome.

Acid and nonacid reflux monitoring

Detection of acid and nonacid reflux using esophageal reflux monitoring, which includes conventional and wireless pH monitoring and pH impedance, can be a valuable diagnostic tool when used appropriately in the assessment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Reflux monitoring may be especially helpful if a management change is desired, such as when initial or empirical treatment is ineffective. However, each of these methods has its limitations, which need to be accounted for in their clinical use. Indications, test performance, interpretation, and clinical applications of esophageal reflux monitoring, as well as their limitations, are discussed in this review.

New Approaches to Management of PPI-Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

OPINION STATEMENT

"Refractory GERD" is one the most common misnomers in the area of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The term implies reflux as the underlying etiology despite unresponsiveness to aggressive, often twice-daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. The term should be replaced with "refractory symptoms." We must acknowledge that in many patients, symptoms of reflux often overlap with non-GERD causes such as gastroparesis, dyspepsia, hypersensitive esophagus, and functional disorders. Lack of response to aggressive acid suppressive therapy often leads to esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by pH or impedance monitoring. In the majority of patients these tests are normal. The role of non-acid reflux measured by impedance pH testing in this group is uncertain at best and the results from this test alone should not be used to refer patients to surgical fundoplication. In patients unresponsive to acid suppressive therapy, reflux is most commonly not causal and a search for non-GERD causes must ensue.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux and GERD

In patients with laryngopharygeal reflux (LPR), gastric contents exhibit retrograde flow into the upper aero-digestive tract, causing extraesophageal symptoms including chronic cough, hoarseness, indigestion, difficulty swallowing, globus pharyngis, and asthma. The following on laryngopharyngeal reflux includes commentaries on the use of patient-completed questionaires and anti-human pepsin antibodies and other non-invasive tests in diagnosis; the role of pepsin and acid in the etiologies of laryngeal cancers; and the application of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for the treatment of LPR.

Proton pump inhibitor resistance, the real challenge in gastro-esophageal reflux disease

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases. Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) represent the mainstay of treatment both for healing erosive esophagitis and for symptom relief, several studies have shown that up to 40% of GERD patients reported either partial or complete lack of response of their symptoms to a standard PPI dose once daily. Several mechanisms have been proposed as involved in PPIs resistance, including ineffective control of gastric acid secretion, esophageal hypersensitivity, ultrastructural and functional changes in the esophageal epithelium. The diagnostic evaluation of a refractory GERD patients should include an accurate clinical evaluation, upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry and ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring, which allows to discriminate non-erosive reflux disease patients from those presenting esophageal hypersensitivity or functional heartburn. Treatment has been primarily based on doubling the PPI dose or switching to another PPI. Patients with proven disease, not responding to PPI twice daily, are eligible for anti-reflux surgery.

The role of impedance monitoring in patients with extraesophageal symptoms

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Ambulatory esophageal impedance monitoring is commonly employed to assess for nonacid reflux in patients with extraesophageal reflux. We aimed to determine if on therapy impedance data can be predicted from off therapy upper endoscopy, manometry, or pH parameters.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective Cohort Study.

METHODS

Patients with extraesophageal reflux symptoms and either partial- or nonresponders to twice-daily PPI underwent impedance monitoring on twice-daily PPI, as well as manometry, upper endoscopy, and 48-hour wireless pH monitoring off acid-suppressive medications for 1 week. Percent time pH < 4 and number of reflux episodes were obtained. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine association between the impedance data on therapy and upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH parameters measured off therapy.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (77% female, median BMI 29, 38% with hiatal hernia, and 19% with esophagitis) were studied both on and off therapy. Thirty-five percent had abnormal impedance monitoring on therapy and 84% had abnormal pH testing off therapy. There was no significant (P = 0.184) overall correlation between total number of impedance events and the baseline physiologic parameters of hiatal hernia, degree of acid reflux, or manometric findings, with only weak correlation (r = 0.54, P = 0.045) with % time pH < 4 among patients with esophagitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected extraesophageal reflux refractory to PPI therapy, impedance measures on therapy cannot be predicted from traditional baseline esophageal physiologic parameters. We recommend caution regarding over-interpretation of impedance data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b.

Increased prandial air swallowing and postprandial gas-liquid reflux among patients refractory to proton pump inhibitor therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Many patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have persistent reflux despite treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Mixed gas-liquid reflux events are more likely to be perceived as symptomatic. We used esophageal impedance monitoring to investigate whether esophageal gas is processed differently among patients with GERD who do and do not respond to PPI therapy.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 44 patients with typical reflux symptoms with high levels of esophageal acid exposure during a 24-hour period; 18 patients were fully responsive, and 26 did not respond to PPI therapy. Twenty-four-hour pH impedance recordings were analyzed for fasting and prandial air swallows and reflux characteristics, including the presence of gas in the refluxate.

RESULTS

PPI-refractory patients had a higher number (83.1 ± 12.7 vs 47.8 ± 7.3, P < .05) and rate (10.5 ± 1.4 vs 5.9 ± 0.8/10 minutes, P < .05) of prandial air swallows than patients who responded to PPI therapy; they also had a higher number (25.5 ± 4.0 vs 16.8 ± 3.3, P < .05) and proportion (70% ± 0.03% vs 54% ± 0.06%, P < .05) of postprandial, mixed gas-liquid reflux. Symptoms of PPI-refractory patients were more often preceded by mixed gas-liquid reflux events than those of PPI responders. Fasting air swallowing and other reflux characteristics did not differ between patients who did and did not respond to PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients with GERD who do not respond to PPI therapy swallow more air at mealtime than those who respond to PPIs and also have more reflux episodes that contain gas. These factors, combined with mucosal sensitization by previous exposure to acid, could affect perception of symptoms. These patients, who can be identified on standard 24-hour pH impedance monitoring, might be given behavioral therapy to reduce mealtime air swallowing.

Comparative analysis of primary repair vs resection and anastomosis, with laparostomy, in management of typhoid intestinal perforation: results of a rural hospital in northwestern Benin

Background

Wireless esophageal pH monitoring system is an important approach for diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the aim of this study is to test the tolerability and utility of the first wireless esophageal pH monitoring system made in China, and evaluate whether it is feasible for clinical application to diagnose GERD.

Methods

Thirty patients from Department of Gastroenterology of The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University who were suspected GERD underwent JSPH-1 pH capsule. The capsule was placed 5 cm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) by endoscopic determination, the data was recorded consecutively for 48 hours. Then all pH data was downloaded to a computer for analysis. The discomforts reported by patients were recorded.

Results

30 patients were placed JSPH-1 pH capsule successfully and completed 24-hour data recording, 29 patients completed 48-hour data recording. One patient complained of chest pain and required endoscopic removal. No complications and interference of daily activities were reported during data monitoring or follow-up period. 48-hour pH monitoring detected 15 patients of abnormal acid exposure, on day1 detected 9 patients, the difference had statistical significance (P<0.01). Positive symptom index (SI) was identified in 3 patients with normal pH data in both 24-hours. In total, 48-hour monitoring increased diagnosis of GERD in 9 patients.

Conclusion

48-hour esophageal pH monitoring with JSPH-1 wireless pH monitoring system is safe, well tolerated and effective. It can be feasible for clinical application to diagnose GERD.

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.

Reflux episodes detected by impedance in patients on and off esomeprazole: a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled crossover study

BACKGROUND

Combined with 24-h pH monitoring, the use of impedance is the most sensitive method available for detecting oesophageal reflux. Normal values for impedance have been previously established in healthy controls studied on and off proton pump inhibitors (PPI).

AIMS

To determine the effects of PPIs on the total number of reflux episodes in the distal oesophagus measured by impedance in patients with and without gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

In this prospective randomised double-blinded placebo controlled crossover study, all patients underwent two 24-h pH with impedance studies at least 2 weeks apart. Based on a randomisation scheme, patients received either 40 mg of esomeprazole twice daily for 1 week or identical capsule placebo for 1 week, then all patients were crossed over to the other treatment arm. GERD was defined by the validated Johnson-DeMeester score. Reflux by impedance was defined as a 50% decrease from baseline in retrograde movement of liquid between two impedance sites.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were enrolled and 41 patients completed the study [mean age 52 ± 12 years, 42% (17/41) men, 56% (23/41) Caucasian and 34% (14/41) African American]. Overall, there was no significant decrease in the total number of distal impedance episodes with esomeprazole compared with placebo (mean change 6.1 ± 22, P = 0.100). When analysed separately by GERD status, among GERD-positive patients, there was a significant decrease in distal impedance episodes while on esomeprazole compared with placebo (mean change -16 ± 22, P = 0.023), but not in GERD-negative patients (mean change -0.35 ± 20, P = 0.872).

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole decreases significantly the number of reflux episodes detected by impedance, but only in patients with GERD.

Esophageal chemical clearance is impaired in gastro-esophageal reflux disease--a 24-h impedance-pH monitoring assessment

BACKGROUND

Impedance-pH monitoring allows assessment of retrograde and antegrade intra-esophageal movement of fluids and gas. Reflux is followed by volume clearance and chemical clearance, elicited by secondary and swallow-induced peristalsis, respectively. We aimed to assess whether chemical clearance is impaired in gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

Blinded retrospective review of impedance-pH tracings from patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD) and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), and from proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory patients before and after laparoscopic fundoplication. The number of refluxes followed within 30 s by swallow-induced peristaltic waves was divided by the number of total refluxes to obtain a parameter representing chemical clearance namely the postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index.

KEY RESULTS

The PSPW index was significantly lower in 31 ERD (15%) and in 44 NERD (33%) off-PPI patients than in 30 controls (75%), as well as in 18 ERD (16%) and in 48 NERD (31%) on-PPI patients than in 26 on-PPI functional heartburn (FH) cases (67%) (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). In 29 PPI-refractory patients, the median PSPW index was unaltered by otherwise effective antireflux surgery (20% postoperatively, 21% preoperatively). The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the PSPW index in identifying GERD patients were 97%, 89%, 96%, and 93%.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Impairment of chemical clearance is a primary pathophysiological mechanism specific to GERD: it is unaffected by medical/surgical therapy, is not found in FH, and is more pronounced in ERD than in NERD. Using the PSPW index could improve the diagnostic efficacy of impedance-pH monitoring.

Extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease

This article discusses the current state of knowledge regarding the relationship between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and pulmonary and ear/nose/throat manifestations of reflux and outlines the recent developments in the diagnostic and treatment strategies for this difficult group of patients. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and pH monitoring are poorly sensitive for diagnosing reflux in this group of patients. Instead it is recommended that in those without warning symptoms, an empiric trial of proton-pump inhibitors be the initial approach to diagnosing and treating the potential underlying cause of these extraesophageal symptoms.

Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease as diagnosed by impedance-pH monitoring can be cured by laparoscopic fundoplication

BACKGROUND

Some patients with typical (heartburn/regurgitation) symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Impedance-pH monitoring can identify PPI-refractory patients who could benefit from laparoscopic fundoplication, but outcome data are scarce. We aimed to assess whether PPI-refractory GERD as diagnosed by impedance-pH monitoring can be cured by laparoscopic fundoplication.

METHODS

Forty-four consecutive GERD patients with heartburn/regurgitation refractory to high-dose PPI therapy entered a 3-year outcome assessment following robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication. Preoperative on-PPI impedance-pH diagnostic criteria consisted of positive symptom association probability (SAP)/symptom index (SI), and/or abnormal percentage esophageal acid exposure time (%EAET), and/or abnormal number of total refluxes. GERD cure was defined by 3-year postoperative off-PPI normal impedance-pH findings with persistent symptom remission.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, 24 of 38 (63 %) patients who completed the outcome assessment had a positive SAP/SI, 20 of 38 (53 %) for weakly acidic refluxes; 3 of 38 (8 %) patients had an abnormal %EAET, 11 of 38 (29 %) an abnormal number of total refluxes only. Postoperatively, heartburn/regurgitation recurred in 3 patients; abnormal impedance-pH findings were found in two of them, and they responded to PPI therapy. GERD cure was achieved in 34 of 38 (89 %) patients, 11 of 11 with an abnormal number of total refluxes as the only preoperative abnormal impedance-pH finding. Postoperatively, there was a significant decrease of the %EAET (1 vs. 0.1 %, P = 0.002) and of the number of total refluxes (68 vs. 8, P = 0.001), with the latter finding mainly due to a decrease in the number of weakly acidic refluxes.

CONCLUSIONS

Normal reflux parameters and persistent symptom remission at 3-year follow-up can be achieved with laparoscopic fundoplication in the majority of patients with PPI-refractory GERD as diagnosed by impedance-pH monitoring. On-PPI impedance-pH diagnostic criteria should include SAP/SI positivity, an abnormal %EAET, and an abnormal number of total refluxes. Weakly acidic refluxes have a major role in the pathogenesis of PPI-refractory GERD.

Prolonged 2-day esophageal pH-metry with impedance monitoring improves symptom-reflux association analysis

BACKGROUND

The day-to-day variability in the number of reflux episodes and symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease is high; therefore, the assessment of reflux disease based on 24-h monitoring may be inaccurate.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to compare prolonged (48 h) and standard (24 h) pH-impedance monitoring (pH-MII).

METHODS

Fifty-four consecutive patients with typical and atypical reflux symptoms underwent 48-h pH-MII. Acid exposure time (AET), total number of reflux episodes (TR), number of symptoms, and symptom association probability (SAP) were analyzed after the first 24 h and compared with the results obtained during 48 h of monitoring.

RESULTS

The differences between the fractions of patients with normal and abnormal total AET and TR on both days were not significant. The percentage of patients with positive SAP was 57.9% at 24 h and 71.9% at 48 h (difference: 14.81%, 95% CI 0.7-21.29, P<0.05). There were ten patients (10/54, 18.5%) with positive SAP after 48 h that had been negative in the first 24 h. In comparison to 24 h monitoring, patients reported a significantly increased number of various symptoms correlated with reflux after 48 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Extending pH-MII monitoring to 48 h does not improve the detection of abnormal acid exposure. However, it does increase the fraction of patients with positive symptom-reflux association by as much as 18.5%.

Translation and cultural adaptation of the Reflux Finding Score into brazilian portuguese

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion