Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Diagnosis by New Consensus in Clinical Practice: The Additional Value of Mean Basal Impedance

The utility of balloon-based and standard impedance technology to diagnose esophageal mucosal diseases in children

BACKGROUND

Standard impedance catheters and balloon-based mucosal impedance catheters (BBMI) have been used to assess mucosal integrity and diagnose mucosal diseases. The goal of this study was to determine the age-related technical issues associated with mucosal balloon inflation, validate the BBMI measurement against a standard impedance probe, and compare software-generated diagnoses to histologic diagnoses.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited patients undergoing endoscopy, during which patients underwent standard mucosal impedance catheters and BBMI measurements. Measurements were compared to each other, to the histologic diagnoses, and to the number of eosinophils per high power field. We then compared the patients' diagnosis to that assigned by the BBMI software.

KEY RESULTS

Sixty-two patients (mean age: 62 ± 62 months) were recruited, including non-GERD (N = 40), GERD (N = 15), and EoE (N = 7) patients. There were significant differences between the impedance values measured by the two technologies at each esophageal height (p < 0.003). There were significant correlations between the mean impedance values taken by the two catheters in the distal (r2  = 0.272, p = 0.04), mid (r2  = 0.371, p < 0.001), and proximal (r2  = 0.259, p = 0.05) esophagus. There were significant differences in BBMI impedance values across diagnoses in the mid and proximal esophagus (p = 0.024 and 0.025, respectively). While not statistically significant (p = 0.061-0.073), the standard catheter showed similar trends by diagnosis. Using the BBMI diagnostic prediction software, 33%-72% of patients were misclassified.

CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES

While there was significant variability in impedance values between technologies within patients, regional measurements were consistent across catheters. Automated analyses lacked the sensitivity to diagnose inflammatory disorders.

Improved diagnosis of reflux hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Reflux hypersensitivity (RH) is characterized by normal esophageal exposure to acid and positive correlation of symptoms to reflux episodes. Positivity of Symptomatic Index (SI) and/or Symptom Association Probability (SAP) is used diagnostically, though experts support that concordance of both is needed. We evaluated differences among patients with RH and concordance of SI/SAP or not.

METHODS

Patients with typical reflux symptoms without previous GERD diagnosis, submitted simultaneously to Ph-Impedance off PPI and high resolution manometry were included. Self-response to PPI was evaluated. Patients showing SI and/or SAP positivity were considered having RH and further classified to definite RH if both SI/SAP were positive or indefinite if only one positive.

KEY RESULTS

Totally 2659 patients (M/F: 35.6%/64.7%, mean age: 45 ± 14) were included. Final diagnosis was; FH: 21.8%, RH: 29.3% (definite: 14.3%/indefinite: 15%), GERD: 36% and inconclusive GERD: 12.9%. Patients with definite RH showed increased total reflux time, total number of reflux episodes and length of hiatus hernia, and also numerically but not statistically significant increased rates of PPI responsiveness versus indefinite RH and decreased mean nocturnal baseline impedance. Moreover, they showed significantly increased rate of PPI response versus patients with functional heartburn (FH).

CONCLUSION & INFERENCES

Some PPI responsiveness is frequent among patients with RH as also with FH, and cannot discriminate those entities clinically when diagnosing RH using SI and/or SAP positive criterion. Patients with RH and SI/SAP concordance differ from patients without. Implementation of a strict RH definition (both SI and SAP positive) can better distinguish RH from FH and should be used in the future.