The Rome IV versus Rome III criteria for heartburn diagnosis: A comparative study

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.

The views of African and Middle Eastern Gastroenterologists on the management of mild-to-moderate, non-erosive gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD)

INTRODUCTION

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common gastrointestinal disorder that occurs when backflow of the gastric contents into the esophagus results in troublesome symptoms. Though GERD has been extensively studied in Western populations, literature on the management of GERD in patients in Africa and Middle East (AME) is scarce.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we provide an overview of the management of mild-to-moderate GERD in AME. Here we focus on the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for GERD to help physicians and community pharmacists appropriately manage patients with mild-to-moderate GERD in the primary healthcare setting, detailing specific situations and patient scenarios that are relevant to the region, including management of GERD during Ramadan and post-bariatric surgery.

EXPERT OPINION

Under-appreciation of the burden of GERD in the region has resulted in a lack of consensus on management. Barriers that currently prevent the adoption of treatment guidelines in the primary healthcare setting may include lack of availability of local guidelines and referral systems, a paucity of region-specific research, and dogmatic adherence to traditional practice. By increasing awareness, strengthening knowledge, and by more effective utilization of resources, physicians and pharmacists could optimize GERD management strategies to better support patients.

Upright Integrated Relaxation Pressure Predicts Symptom Outcome for Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction

Background/Aims

Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) is characterized by elevated integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) and preserved esophageal peristalsis. The clinical significance of EGJOO is uncertain. This study aim to describe the clinical characteristics of these patients and to find out potential parameters to predict patients’ symptom outcome.

Methods

Consecutive patients who received high-resolution manometry examination in our hospital in 2013-2019 and met the diagnostic criteria of EGJOO were retrospectively included. Motility and reflux parameters as well as endoscopy and barium esophagogram results were studied and compared. Patients were also followed up to record their treatment methods and symptom outcomes.

Results

A total of 138 EGJOO (accounting for 5.2% of total patients taking high-resolution manometry examination in our hospital) patients were included. Only 2.9% of these patients had persistent dysphagia. A total of 81.8% of EGJOO patients had symptom resolution during follow-up. Patients with persistent dysphagia had significantly higher upright IRP (16.6 [10.3, 19.8] vs 7.8 [3.2, 11.5]; P = 0.026) than those without. Upright IRP can effectively distinguished patients with persistent dysphagia (area under curve 0.826; P = 0.026) using optimal cut-off value of 9.05 mmHg.

Conclusion

EGJOO patients with persistent dysphagia and higher upright IRP (median > 9.05 mmHg) needs further evaluation and aggressive management.

Rome III, Rome IV, and Potential Asia Symptom Criteria for Functional Dyspepsia Do Not Reliably Distinguish Functional From Organic Disease

INTRODUCTION:

Although the Rome criteria were created primarily for research purposes, it was an important question whether the Rome criteria can distinguish organic dyspepsia from functional dyspepsia (FD). We evaluated the accuracy of the Rome IV criteria in identifying patients with FD and compared the differences between the Rome IV, Rome III, and potential Asia criteria in identifying patients with FD.

METHODS:

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria from March 2018 to January 2019 at 2 tertiary hospitals.

RESULTS:

A total of 600 patients were enrolled in this study, including 381 individuals met the Rome IV criteria for FD, 438 individuals met the Rome III criteria for FD, and 525 individuals met the potential Asia criteria for FD. The Rome IV criteria identified patients with FD with 67.3% sensitivity and 38.4% specificity, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios of FD identified by Rome IV criteria were 1.09 (95% confidence interval 0.97–1.24) and 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.67–1.08), respectively. There was no significant difference in the area under Rome IV, Rome III, or potential Asia criteria receiver operating characteristic curves in identifying FD (P > 0.05).

DISCUSSION:

The Rome IV criteria were no better than the Rome III or potential Asia criteria in identifying FD and were not helpful in identifying patients with FD. Hence, although the Rome criteria remain useful for defining patients with FD for inclusion into clinical treatment trials, they should not be used for diagnosing FD.

Esophageal symptoms versus epigastric symptoms: Relevance for diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

Although pathological acid reflux in patients with reflux symptoms is uncommon, it affects one-third of patients with epigastric symptoms in China. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the relevance of esophageal and epigastric symptoms in diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in China.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients with predominantly esophageal symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain, dysphagia) or predominantly epigastric symptoms (epigastric pain, epigastric burning, early satiety, postprandial fullness) were enrolled. Patients underwent upper endoscopy and esophageal function tests, and took proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. The prevalence of GERD and PPI efficacy was assessed and compared among patients with different dominant symptoms.

RESULTS

Altogether 374 patients (244 with predominantly esophageal symptoms and 130 with predominantly epigastric symptoms) were enrolled. Patients with predominantly epigastric symptoms had a slightly lower prevalence of reflux esophagitis and pathological acid reflux but a significantly lower PPI response rate than those with predominantly esophageal symptoms. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the predominant symptom was independently associated with PPI efficacy but could not predict the objective existence of GERD. GERD was objectively found in 136 patients, 30% of whom complained of predominantly epigastric symptoms and had similar reflux profiles and symptom outcomes as patients with predominantly esophageal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 30% of patients with GERD complain of predominantly epigastric symptoms and have comparable reflux profiles and symptom outcomes as those with predominantly esophageal symptoms. Epigastric symptoms may be part of the diagnosis for GERD in a Chinese population. The study was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02506634).

[Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring of reflux patterns in non-erosive reflux disease, reflux hypersensitivity and functional heartburn]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the differences in reflux patterns in 24-hour esophageal pH-impedance monitoring in patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), reflux hypersensitivity (RH) and functional heartburn (FH) and explore the possible mechanism of symptoms in patients with heartburn and negative endoscopic findings.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients with heartburn as the main symptoms but negative endoscopic findings, including 35 with NERD, 16 with RH and 28 with FH, were enrolled in this study.All the patients underwent 24-h esophageal pH-impedance monitoring and esophagogastroscopy, and the results were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

Acid reflux episode was significantly increased and weakly alkaline reflux episode was significantly decreased in NERD group in comparison with RH group and FH group (P < 0.05).The patients in NERD group showed significantly increased total reflux episode, mixed reflux episode, proximal acid reflux episode, proximal weak acid reflux episode, total proximal reflux episode, percentage of proximal acid reflux, percentage of proximal weak acid reflux, and percentage of total proximal reflux as compared with the other two groups (all P < 0.05).Bolus clear time was significantly prolonged in NERD group compared with that in the other two groups (P < 0.05).Analysis of the reflux acidity showed that the percentages of different reflux episodes differed significantly among the 3 groups (P < 0.05);acid reflux was the main reflux in NERD, while weak acid reflux was the main reflux in RH and FH groups, which had also significantly increased weakly alkaline reflux episodes compared with NERD group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with NERD, RH and FH had different reflux patterns.Acid reflux is predominant in the NERD, while weakly alkaline reflux is significantly increased RH and FH.In patients with normal esophageal acid exposure but without symptoms or without recorded symptoms during esophageal pH-impedance monitoring, analysis of the total reflux episode, mixed reflux episode, proximal acid reflux episode and percentage can help in the differential diagnosis between RH and FH.

A study of proximal esophageal baseline impedance in identifying and predicting laryngopharyngeal reflux

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is caused by the reflux of gastric contents beyond the esophagus into the larynx and pharynx. However, upper esophageal sphincter (UES) motility and proximal esophagus reflux parameters are poorly studied. This study aims to explore the characteristics of UES motility and reflux parameter among LPR patients.

METHODS

Patients with laryngopharyngeal symptoms only (L), patients with laryngopharyngeal symptoms and typical esophageal symptoms (L + E), patients with typical esophageal symptoms only (E), and healthy controls (H) were retrospectively included. Physiological profiles were studied and compared among groups using both high-resolution manometry and pH-impedance monitoring, including UES basal pressure, residual pressure, relaxation duration time, recovery time, the time to nadir pressure, UES length, proximal contractile integral, and proximal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI). Patients' symptom outcomes were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 242 patients were included. Proximal MNBI was significantly lower in patients with both laryngopharyngeal and esophageal symptoms (17 cm above low esophageal sphincter [LES]: L vs L + E vs E vs H = 3689.7 vs 2500.0 vs 3073.0 vs 3996.0; 15 cm above LES: L vs L + E vs E vs H = 3155.9 vs 2553.4 vs 3198.9 vs 2985.2; P < 0.001). Patients responded to proton pump inhibitor treatment also had lower proximal MNBI than those who did not (17 cm above LES: 1834.0 vs 3500.0; 15 cm above LES: 1946.5 vs 3432.6; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Decreased proximal MNBI can not only identify LPR patients but also predict patients' symptom outcomes.

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.

Esophageal physiologic profiles within erosive esophagitis in China: Predominantly low-grade esophagitis with low reflux burden

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Lyon Consensus defines LA grades C&D erosive esophagitis (EE) or acid exposure time (AET) >6% as the conclusive evidence for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, most of EE is LA grade A&B and the rate of AET exceeding 6% is low in China. We aimed to evaluate patients with EE in the Chinese population based on the Lyon Criteria.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed among patients with EE who had esophageal function tests performed in a tertiary hospital from 2013 to 2017. Erosive esophagitis was staged according to the Los Angeles classification. Their motor profiles from high-resolution manometry (HRM), reflux profiles from multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) efficacy were analyzed. Patients were categorized as conclusive or inconclusive GERD.

RESULTS

Among 112 patients with EE who underwent esophageal function tests, EE of LA grade C&D was found in only 4.46% (N = 5). Almost 35% (N = 37) of patients with LA grade A&B EE had AET exceeded 6%, who had good PPI response similar to those with LA grade C&D EE (77.42% vs 100%, P = .559). The remaining 70 patients (62.50%) were inconclusive GERD, of whom 56.25% responded to PPI. Inconclusive GERD patients had a wide range (7.14%-97.14%) of positive adjunctive evidences from HRM and MII-pH monitoring without significant correlation to PPI response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The reflux burden within patients with EE is predominantly low in China, and adjunctive HRM and MII-pH profiles from Lyon criteria do not segregate PPI response.