Dysmotility and reflux disease. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;21:548-556. [PMID: 24240131 DOI: 10.1097/moo.0b013e3283658edf]

Impact of Esophageal Motility on Microbiome Alterations in Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients With Negative Endoscopy: Exploring the Role of Ineffective Esophageal Motility and Contraction Reserve

Background/Aims

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and can be associated with poor esophageal contraction reserve on multiple rapid swallows. Alterations in the esophageal microbiome have been reported in GERD, but the relationship to presence or absence of contraction reserve in IEM patients has not been evaluated. We aim to investigate whether contraction reserve influences esophageal microbiome alterations in patients with GERD and IEM.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled GERD patients with normal endoscopy and evaluated esophageal motility and contraction reserve with multiple rapid swallows during high-resolution manometry. The esophageal mucosa was biopsied for DNA extraction and 16S ribosomal RNA gene V3-V4 (Illumina)/full-length (Pacbio) amplicon sequencing analysis.

Results

Among the 56 recruited patients, 20 had normal motility (NM), 19 had IEM with contraction reserve (IEM-R), and 17 had IEM without contraction reserve (IEM-NR). Esophageal microbiome analysis showed a significant decrease in microbial richness in patients with IEM-NR when compared to NM. The beta diversity revealed different microbiome profiles between patients with NM or IEM-R and IEM-NR (P = 0.037). Several esophageal bacterial taxa were characteristic in patients with IEM-NR, including reduced Prevotella spp. and Veillonella dispar, and enriched Fusobacterium nucleatum. In a microbiome-based random forest model for predicting IEM-NR, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 was yielded.

Conclusions

In symptomatic GERD patients with normal endoscopic findings, the esophageal microbiome differs based on contraction reserve among IEM. Absent contraction reserve appears to alter the physiology and microbiota of the esophagus.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and GERD: links and risks

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are two pathological conditions often strictly related, even if a clear relationship of causality has not been demonstrated. GERD is a frequent comorbidity in IPF patients, as demonstrated using combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH, despite being mostly clinically silent. According to that, it has been hypothesized that microaspiration of gastric material may play a fundamental role in the fibrotic transformation of pulmonary parenchyma. In contrast, it cannot be excluded that IPF may favor GERD by increasing the negative intrathoracic pressure. Therefore, this relationship is uncertain as well as not univocal. Nevertheless, the latest international guidelines recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in IPF based on several data showing that PPIs can stabilize lung function, reduce disease flares and hospitalizations. On the contrary, recent studies not only question the relevance of these results, but also associate the use of PPIs with an increased risk of lung infections and a negative prognostic outcome. The aim of this review is to analyze the possible links between GERD and IPF and their possible therapeutic implications, trying to translate this scientific evidence into useful information for clinical practice.

Updates in the field of non-esophageal gastroesophageal reflux disorder

Introduction: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most prevalent conditions in Western Countries, normally presenting with heartburn and regurgitation. Extra-esophageal (EE) GERD manifestations, such as asthma, laryngitis, chronic cough and dental erosion, represent the most challenging aspects from diagnostic and therapeutic points of view because of their multifactorial pathogenesis and low response to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). In fact, in the case of EE, other causes must by preventively excluded, but instrumental methods, such as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and laryngoscopy, have low specificity and sensitivity as diagnostic tools. In the absence of alarm signs and symptoms, empirical therapy with a double-dose of PPIs is recommended as a first diagnostic approach. Subsequently, impedance-pH monitoring could help to define whether the symptoms are GERD-related. Areas covered: This article reviews the current literature regarding established and proposed EE-GERD, reporting on all available options for its correct diagnosis and therapeutic management. Expert opinion: MII-pH could help to identify a hidden GERD that causes EE. Unfortunately, standard MII-pH analysis results are often unable to define this association. New parameters such as the mean nocturnal baseline impedance and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index may have an improved diagnostic yield, but prospective studies using impedance-pH are needed.

Manometric Subtypes of Ineffective Esophageal Motility

Objectives:

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is characterized by well-defined manometric criteria. However, much variation exists within the diagnosis: Some patients exhibit exactly the required five weak swallows to make the diagnosis. Others show consistently ineffective swallows with total absence of any normal swallow. “We hypothesize” there are two different manometric subtypes of IEM; IEM Alternans (IEM-A) and IEM Persistens (IEM-P).

Methods:

A total of 231 IEM patients were identified by high-resolution manometry (HRM). IEM defined by distal contractile integral (DCI) <450 mm Hg/s/cm in ≥50% of test swallows. Abnormal reflux study was defined by excess total number of reflux episodes, abnormal esophageal acid exposure, or positive symptom association.

Results:

A total of 195 (84%) patients had IEM-A and 36 (16%) had IEM-P. A striking gender difference with 34% of IEM-A being males compared to 53% of IEM-P. (P=0.03). Mean age of IEM-P (59.6 years+/−13.1) was greater than IEM-A (55.5 years+/−13.6) (P=0.04). Mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure was significantly lower in IEM-P (20.8 mm Hg+/−1.4) than IEM-A (29 mm Hg+/−1.2) (P=0.002). There was no difference in LES-integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), bolus transit, or manometric presence of hiatal hernia between the two groups. Out of 146, 89 (61%) patients had abnormal reflux study. Esophageal acid exposure in upright position was significantly higher in IEM-P than IEM-A (3.5 vs. 1.7%, P=0.04). Poor gastric acid control on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was more prevalent among IEM-P patients (58%) than IEM-A (27%) (P=0.007). In subgroup analysis of 41 IEM patients with dysphagia, DCI for liquid swallows was significantly lower in IEM-P (111+/−142 mm Hg/s/cm) compared to IEM-A (421+/−502 mm Hg/s/cm) (P=0.04), lower mean LES resting pressure in IEM-P (16.6+/−9 mm Hg) than IEM-A (31.7+/−18 mm Hg) (P=0.01).

Conclusions:

There are two distinct manometric IEM subtypes; IEM-P with an older male predominance, more advanced reflux disease, weaker LES, and worse response to PPI; likely a more advanced manifestation than IEM-A. However, the question if there are different etiologies underlying the two subtypes remains to be answered.

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.