Utility of 24-hour pharyngeal pH monitoring and clinical feature in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease

Patient journey in gastroesophageal reflux disease: real-world perspectives from Italian gastroenterologists, primary care physicians, and ENT specialists

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a challenging condition that involves different physicians, such as general practitioners (GPs), gastroenterologists, and ears, nose and throat (ENT) specialists. A common approach consists of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) administration. Adjunctive pharmacological treatment may have a role in the management of non-responders to PPIs.

Objectives

We aimed to survey GPs and different medical specialists to investigate the medical approaches to patients reporting GERD symptoms. In addition, we examined the use of adjunctive pharmacological treatments in patients with GERD symptoms who do not respond to PPIs.

Design

Retrospective observational study.

Methods

A survey was conducted among a large sample of gastroenterologists, GPs, and ENT specialists. Symptoms were divided into typical and extraesophageal, and their severity and impact on quality of life were explored with the GERD Impact Scale and with Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). All therapies administered usually for GERD were investigated.

Results

A total of 6211 patients were analyzed in this survey. Patients with typical symptoms were 53.5%, while those with extraesophageal symptoms were 46.5%. The latter were more frequently reported by ENT patients (53.6%, p < 0.0001). The GSI was higher in patients followed by gastroenterologists (9 points) and GPs (9 points) than ENT specialists (8 points), but the RSI was higher in the ENT group (14.3 ± 6.93) than in GPs and gastroenterologist groups (10.36 ± 6.36 and 10.81 ± 7.30, p < 0.0001). Chest pain had the highest negative impact on quality of life (p < 0.0001). Of the 3025 patients who used PPIs, non-responders showed a lower GSI when treated with a combination of adjunctive pharmacological treatments and bioadhesive compounds, than with single-component drugs.

Conclusion

Patients with GERD referred to a gastroenterologist had more severe disease and poorer quality of life. The combination of adjunctive pharmacological treatments and bioadhesive compounds seems to be effective in the management of PPI refractory patients.

Medium-term clinical efficacy of endoscopic antireflux mucosectomy on laryngopharyngeal reflux: a retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies on the effect of antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS) on laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) are lacking. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study to explore the clinical efficacy of ARMS on LPRD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients diagnosed with LPRD by oropharyngeal 24-hour Dx-pH monitoring who underwent ARMS. The effects of ARMS on LPRD were evaluated by comparing the 36-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-36), reflux symptom index (RSI), and 24-hour Dx-pH monitoring scores before and 1 year after surgery. Patients were divided into groups according to gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV) grade to explore the effect of GEFV on prognosis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-three patients were included in the study. The oropharyngeal pH monitoring results showed that the effective rate of ARMS was 72.1% (132/183). After surgery, the SF-36 score was higher (P = .000), RSI score was lower (P = .000), and the symptoms of constant throat clearing; difficulty swallowing food, liquids, and pills; coughing after eating or after lying down; troublesome or annoying cough; and breathing difficulties or choking episodes were significantly improved (P < .05). Upright reflux was dominant in GEFV grade I to III patients, and the SF-36, RSI, and upright Ryan index scores were significantly improved after surgery (P < .05). In GEFV grade IV patients, regurgitation was dominant in the supine position, and the above evaluation indexes were worse after surgery (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

ARMS is effective for LPRD. The GEFV grade can predict the prognosis of surgery. ARMS is effective in GEFV grade I to III patients, but the effect is not exact in GEFV grade IV patients and may even be aggravated.

Comparison of Reflux Symptom Score versus Reflux Symptom Index in screening laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVES

To compare the screening value of the Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

METHODS

All included patients attending the Department of Otolaryngology at the Sixth Medical Center of the PLA General Hospital from February 2022 to August 2022, completed the RSS and the RSI and underwent 24-hour hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (24 h HEMII-pH) monitoring. The results of 24 h HEMII-pH were used as a diagnostic criterion for LPR, consistency between two questionnaires (RSS, RSI) and 24 h HEMII-pH was compared by the weighted Cohen's kappa statistic and the screening value of RSS and RSI for LPR was compared by receiver operating characteristics analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients, 58 males, and 19 females, were included. The Kappa values of between RSS, RSI, and 24 h HEMII-pH were 0.663 (p < 0.001) and 0.213 (p < 0.05), respectively. The sensitivity of RSS and RSI were 92.8% and 48.2%, respectively, the specificity was 71.4% and 80.9%. The negative predictive value and positive predictive value of RSI were 36.9%, 87.1%, and that of RSS were 78.9%, 89.6%. The area under curve of the RSS (0.783; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.75) is significantly higher than RSI (0.633; 95% CI = 0.72, 0.90).

CONCLUSION

The RSS has a higher consistency and better screening value for LPR compared to RSI. In addition, the RSS includes more reflux symptoms, which may reduce the number of missed diagnoses in patients with LPR to some extent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 133:2104-2109, 2023.

The Profiles of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Patients With Different Vocal Fold Lesions

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the profiles of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and the relationship between hypopharyngeal-proximal reflux episodes (HREs) and the positive rate of salivary pepsin testing in patients with vocal fold lesions (VFLs).

METHODS

The enrolled patients were divided into vocal fold cancer group (VFCG), vocal fold leukoplakia group (VFLG), benign vocal fold lesion group (BVFLG) and control group (CG). Patients benefited from multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) and multi-time point salivary pepsin testing (MTPSPT). The LPR profiles of patients with VFLs were studied by analyzing the MII-pH findings. The relationship between HREs and positive rate of MTPSPT was investigated through the nonparametric test.

RESULTS

177 patients were included. According to 24 h MII-pH, the occurrence of HREs tended to increase after meals. 55.75%, 63.98%, 66.82% and 55.77% of the HREs in the VFCG, VFLG, BVFLG and CG occurred within 3 h after meals, respectively. The overall positive rate of MTPSPT was higher in the VFCG than the remaining groups. In the VFCG, there was a significant correlation between overall positive results of MTPSPT and HREs occurring within 3 h after meals.

CONCLUSION

In the Chinese population, the occurrence of HREs tend to more frequently after meals in patients with VFLs, and most HREs occur within 3 h after meals. By analyzing the 24h MII-pH findings, we can develop a more individualized anti-reflux therapeutic strategy for LPR patients.

Reflux Finding Score Using HD Video Chromoendoscopy: A Diagnostic Adjunct in Suspected Laryngopharyngeal Reflux?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the use of real-time virtual chromoendoscopy (i-scan) in characterizing the mucosal changes present in subjects with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to compare the inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of Reflux Finding Scores (RFS) from both laryngologists and general otolaryngologists (ORL) observing exams using both white light endoscopy (WLE) and i-scan.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study that included 66 subjects: 46 symptomatic and 20 asymptomatic of suspected LPR based on the reflux symptom index (RSI). Subjects underwent flexible video laryngoscopic evaluation of the larynx utilising both WLE and i-scan during one continuous exam. Subjects also underwent 24-hour oropharyngeal pH-monitoring (Dx-pH). Two laryngologists and two general otolaryngologists evaluated the anonymized videos independently using RFS. Dx-pH results were interpreted using the pH graph, report and RYAN score. Subjects were then designated into one of three groups: no reflux, acid reflux and alkaline reflux.

RESULTS

For the symptomatic group, no mucosal irregularities or early mucosal lesions were observed except in one subject who had granulation tissue. The mean RFS using WLE and i-scan were, respectively: 11.8 (SD 6.1) and 11.3 (SD 5.6) in symptomatic and 7.3 (SD 5.7) and 7.3 (SD 5.2) in asymptomatic group. The inter-rater agreement of RFS using WLE and i-scan for both groups were good with intraclass correlation, ICC of 0.84 and 0.88 (laryngologists); and 0.85 and 0.81 (ORL). The intra-rater agreement among all four raters were good to excellent and similar for both WLE and i-scan (ICC of 0.80 to 0.99). 47 of 66 subjects had evidence of LPR on Dx-pH results which more specifically showed 39 subjects had "acid reflux" and 8 had "alkaline reflux". Sixteen subjects demonstrated a positive RYAN score but showed none were significantly correlated with their RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the first utilization of real-time video chromoendoscopy with i-scan technology through high-definition flexible endoscopes to attempt to characterize laryngopharyngeal findings in patients suspected of having LPR. Both general otolaryngologists and laryngologists were equally capable of reliably calculating the RFS using both WLE and i-scan, however no significant improvement in agreement or change in RFS was found when i-scan technology was employed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

Does hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux have to be 24 h?

PURPOSE

To investigate the diagnostic value of combined multi-timepoint salivary pepsin testing (MTPSPT) and hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and whether an appropriate reduction in the duration of HEMII-pH would affect the accuracy of diagnosis of LPR.

METHODS

Recruited patients were studied with both MTPSPT and HEMII-pH. The diagnosis of LPR was based on the occurrence of > 1 reflux event and/or positive results on any of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value of combined diagnosis was studied through combining a breakdown of the 24-h HEMII-pH finding and the results of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value was expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

Based on 24-h HEMII-pH and MTPSPT, the positive rate of LPR was 83.33% and 74.69%, respectively. According to the combined diagnosis, the positive rate of LPR was 90.74%. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined diagnosis both were 89.51% and 100%, when the HEMII-pH intervals were 7 a.m.-6 p.m. and 7 a.m.-7 p.m., respectively. However, when the monitoring time was extended to 8 p.m. and bedtime, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the combined diagnosis both were 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of MTPSPT and HEMII-pH increased the sensitivity and accuracy of diagnosis of LPR. For patients with positive MTPSPT results, the duration of HEMII-pH can be appropriately shortened to reduce patient sufferings.

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.

Poor consistency between reflux symptom index and laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring in laryngopharyngeal reflux diagnosis in Chinese population

Background

It is unknown whether the reflux symptom index (RSI) can replace pH monitoring as a diagnostic tool for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in Chinese people. The relationships between reflux parameters and LPR symptoms also require further research.

Methods

A total of 216 Chinese patients underwent laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring and filled out an RSI questionnaire. Laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring indicated a diagnosis of LPR for patients with 7 or more episodes of reflux or a reflex area index (RAI) of 6.3 or more. The RSI questionnaire indicated a diagnosis of LPR for patients with RSI scores of 14 or higher.

Results

Of the 216 patients, 85 were diagnosed with LPR as assessed by the RSI, and 72 were diagnosed with LPR through laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring. The Cohen's kappa coefficient comparing LPR diagnosis consistency between RSI score and laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring was 0.133 (P=0.007). This indicated the two diagnostic methods were consistent to a low degree; the total consistency rate was only 59.7% (129/216). The sensitivity of the RSI was 48.6% (35/72), and its specificity was 82.5% (94/114). For convenience, we named the nine symptom groups in the RSI sequentially as P1-P9. P1, P2, P3, P5, P6, and P7 were all correlated with at least one reflux parameter (P<0.05), but P4, P8, and P9 were not correlated with any reflux parameters (P>0.05). A total of 72 patients were diagnosed using pH monitoring, the gold standard for LPR diagnosis. The most common symptoms of LPR were found to be P9, P3, P8, P7, and P2 in these patients. The symptoms that most seriously affected patients were P9, P8, P3, P7, and P2.

Conclusions

The consistency in diagnosis of LPR between the RSI and laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring was poor, meaning the RSI is not a suitable LPR initial screening tool and cannot replace pH monitoring. Additionally, reflux symptoms P4, P8, and P9 were not correlated with any reflux parameters. The most prevalent LPR symptom was P9, followed by P3, P8, P7, and P2. The most severe symptom was also P9, followed by P8, P3, P7, and P2.

The Prevalence of Esophageal Disorders Among Voice Patients With Laryngopharyngeal Reflux-A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of esophageal disorders among voice patients with intractable laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) who have undergone 24 pH impedance and esophageal manometry.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of patients with LPR-associated dysphonia in the absence of subjective dysphagia who presented between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2019 and underwent 24 pH impedance and esophageal manometry studies after inadequate response to lifestyle modifications, high dose of Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPIs), H2 blockers, alkaline water, and Gaviscon (GlaxoSmithKline, Warren, NJ, USA). The comorbidities, medications, Strobovideolaryngoscopy findings, 24 pH impedance, and esophageal manometry results were analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 109 patients ages 19 to 80 years old, with a mean age of 51.5 (SD 16.8). About 24.8% of the 109 subjects were found to have peristaltic wave abnormalities indicating esophageal dysmotility (11% with esophageal stasis). Lower esophageal sphincter pressures were normotensive in 56.9% of patients, hypertensive in 24.8%, and hypotensive in 18.4% of patients. In addition, the upper esophageal sphincter pressures were normotensive in 57.8% of patients, hypertensive in 36.7%, and hypotensive in 2.8% of patients. About 12.6% had both lower esophageal sphincter and upper esophageal sphincter dysfunction (hypertensive or hypotensive). The average total reflux events in patients exhibiting dysmotility on manometry 101.81, which was significantly higher compared with the mean total of 61.28 in the group of patients without dysmotility (P= 0.0396). In addition, there was a significantly higher prevalence of total events that were weakly acidic in the group with dysmotility compared with the group without (all patients performed the study on reflux medications, mean of total weakly acidic events 70.2 in dysmotility group vs 44.2 in normal motility group, P= 0.0427).Finally, the average number of total supine reflux events and the total acidic supine events were both significantly higher in the dysmotility group compared with the group without motility problems (P = 0.0199 and P = 0.0213, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Esophageal dysmotility may be a significant cofactor in voice patients with refractory LPR on appropriate reflux medications and lifestyle modifications. Further research is advised.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - a multi-centre study

Reflux of gastric content has been associated with recurrent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to assess the prevalence of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in COPD and if LPR is a contributing factor to clinically relevant outcomes in COPD. We evaluated a total of 193 COPD patients (GOLD I-IV) with a 24-h laryngo-pharyngeal pΗ-monitor. LPR was observed in 65.8% of COPD patients and it was not significantly associated with clinically relevant outcomes of COPD. Treatment with PPI significantly decreased the upright RYAN score (p = 0.047) without improving lung function. Furthermore, the presence or severity of LPR cannot be diagnosed based solely on symptoms and questionnaires.

Relationship between laryngopharyngeal reflux disease and gastroesophageal reflux disease based on synchronous esophageal and oropharyngeal Dx-pH monitoring

PURPOSE

To use the synchronous esophageal and oropharyngeal Dx-pH monitoring analysis to investigate the relationship between LPRD and GERD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Synchronous esophageal and oropharyngeal Dx-pH monitoring, electronic gastroscopy, reflux symptom index (RSI) and gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire (Gerd-Q) were collected from 514 consecutive patients and comparative analysis was done.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients had positive Ryan score and 251 cases had positive DeMeester or acid exposure time percent (AET) ≥4.2%. Moreover, 61.2% (52/85) of all LPRD cases were pure LPRD without GERD. There was no statistical difference in the acid exposure to oropharynx between pure LPRD group and LPRD+GERD group (U test, P > 0.05). Furthermore, there were no statistical differences in the other esophageal reflux data between pure GERD without LPRD group and LPRD+GERD group (U test, P > 0.05) apart from the number of episodes, which was higher in the pure GERD group than in LPRD+GERD group (U test, P = 0.027). Additionally, 149 patients were diagnosed with reflux esophagitis by electronic gastroscopy. No significant difference in the acid exposure to oropharynx was seen between different grades of reflux esophagitis (U test, P > 0.05). Among the LPRD patients, 32 cases (37.6%) were negative for Gerd-Q, Dx-pH esophageal probe and gastroscopy.

CONCLUSION

The results of synchronous esophageal and oropharyngeal Dx-pH monitoring demonstrated that LPRD and GERD could co-exist as separate medical conditions. Our data suggest that some LPRD are not accompanied by GERD, and that LPRD is not secondary to severe GERD.

Smoking Cessation Improves the Symptoms and the Findings of Laryngeal Irritation

Smoking is known to increase laryngeal inflammation and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), which cause laryngeal irritation. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the changes in the symptoms and the findings of laryngeal irritation in smokers after a smoking cessation period. The reflux symptom index (RSI) and the reflux finding score (RFS) were used for evaluating the symptoms and findings of laryngeal irritation in smokers. Endoscopic examination of the laryngeal structures for RFS and symptom inquiry for RSI were performed at the beginning of the study and after a 2 months of cigarette cessation period. This study was carried out in 24 volunteers (14 female and 10 male), between the ages of 24 and 62 years. When we compared the results of RSI and RFS that were performed before and after the cigarette cession period, we found that there was a significant improvement both in RSI and in RFS (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). Also, there was significant correlation between the cigarette smoking period and RFS score that was determined at the beginning of the study (P = .006, r = .54). A significant improvement was found both in RSI and in RFS after smoking cessation period, which might be the evidence of improvement in laryngeal irritation possibly caused by inflammation due to smoking and LPR. A significant positive correlation was found between smoking period and RFS, especially with vocal fold edema and posterior commissure hypertrophy.