Impedance pH Monitoring: Intra-observer and Inter-observer Agreement and Usefulness of a Rapid Analysis of Symptom Reflux Association

Reflux definitions in esophageal multi-channel intraluminal impedance

Aim

In this study, we aim to propose consensus-based interpretations to enhance both automatic, and manual analysis and then present our recommendations about reflux-related variables to enhance Multichannel Intraluminal (MII) measurements.

Background

Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring is the most sensible option to evaluate Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), specifically for the patients with normal endoscopy findings, and persistent symptoms without response to Proton Pomp Inhibitor therapy. There were only a few studies on the interpretation of reflux events in MII tracings.

Methods

Several 200 episodes of reflux events were reviewed during several meetings in five steps, to discuss and categorize unresolved issues within existing interpretations, and propose technical principles for accurate characterization of reflux events.

Results

In this study, we show that baseline impedance is determined using a moving average procedure to the impedance data of each channel with a time window of 60 seconds based on this finding; a liquid reflux event is defined as a retrograde 50% drop in baseline impedance, gas reflux event is defined as a rapid increase in impedance greater than 5 kΩ, Mixed liquid-gas reflux is defined as gas reflux occurring immediately before or during liquid reflux.

Conclusion

The reliability of final diagnosis is significantly dependent on the accurate detection of reflux events, which is currently confronting technical limitations. A pathological reflux event propagates to at least three of the impedance sites, according to the literature. We think that taking three impedance locations into account might be too strict.

Normal values and regional differences in oesophageal impedance-pH metrics: a consensus analysis of impedance-pH studies from around the world

OBJECTIVE

Limitations of existing impedance-pH thresholds include small sample size of normative studies, inclusion of artefactual pH drops and incorrect identification of impedance reflux events. We aimed to obtain new impedance-pH thresholds from expert consensus analysis of tracings from a large number of healthy subjects.

DESIGN

Of 541 studies performed worldwide using two different systems (Diversatek, USA, and Laborie, Netherlands), 150 tracings with oesophageal diagnoses, behavioural disorders and study-related artefacts were excluded. The remainder studies were subject to two reviewer consensus analysis, in-person or through video conference, consisting of editing meals and pH drops, identification of impedance reflux and postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) using strict pre-established criteria and measurement of distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI).

RESULTS

Consensus analysis was performed in 391 tracings (age 32.7 years, range 18-71, 54.2% female). Normative thresholds were significantly different between Diversatek and Laborie (total acid exposure time: 2.8% and 5%; reflux episodes: 55 and 78; MNBI at 3 cm: 1400 and 1500 ohms, at 5 cm: 1400 and 1800 ohms). Males had higher acid exposure, more reflux episodes and lower MNBI. Significant regional differences were identified, including higher PSPW scores in Western countries, and higher MNBI in Asia using Diversatek, and higher acid exposure in the Netherlands, higher MNBI in Asia and South Africa, and lower MNBI in Turkey using Laborie.

CONCLUSION

Normal impedance-pH monitoring thresholds have regional and system-related differences. Clinical interpretation needs to use normal thresholds valid for the system used and world region, following careful editing of the tracings.

Optimization of impedance-measured reflux events in GORD utilizing acid exposure time

Background

Combining impedance with pH monitoring improves the detection and characterization of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR), yet the two modalities frequently differ in GOR quantification. Ambulatory 24-h pH-impedance monitoring often reveals more significant oesophageal acid exposure than impedance-measured reflux activity in patients with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The purpose of this study is to elucidate the discrepancies between these modalities by assessing the predictive accuracy of impedance compared to acid exposure standards.

Methods

A single-institution, retrospective review of sequential 24-h pH-impedance results of 72 patients with symptomatic GOR off anti-secretory therapy was conducted. Reflux events measured by impedance were stratified by patient position and compared to oesophageal acid exposure time (AET). Oesophageal AET limits for GORD detection were utilized as gold standards to generate serial receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves to assess the sensitivity and specificity of current impedance GORD detection limits and identify optimized impedance standards based on area under the curve (AUC) analysis.

Results

Mean total AET time was 10.5% (± 9.9%), and 63.8% of patients had elevated AET. By impedance, median GOR frequency was 43 (IQR 21–68), and 22.2% exceeded conventional GOR frequency limits of normal. ROC curve analysis revealed the current impedance standard of > 73 GOR events has a sensitivity of 32.6% and specificity of 96.5% (AUC 0.74) for GORD detection. By AUC analysis, an impedance threshold of > 41 GOR events is optimal for GORD detection (sensitivity 69.6%, specificity 80.7%, AUC 0.83).

Conclusion

Conventional impedance standards for abnormal GOR frequency are weakly sensitive for the detection of GORD, providing a possible explanation to discrepancies in AET and impedance interpretation. Lowering impedance-measured GOR frequency limits to > 41 optimizes sensitivity and specificity while increasing congruence between pH and impedance metrics.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for oesophageal manometry and oesophageal reflux monitoring

These guidelines on oesophageal manometry and gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring supersede those produced in 2006. Since 2006 there have been significant technological advances, in particular, the development of high resolution manometry (HRM) and oesophageal impedance monitoring. The guidelines were developed by a guideline development group of patients and representatives of all the relevant professional groups using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A systematic literature search was performed and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of the recommendations made. Key strong recommendations are made regarding the benefit of: (i) HRM over standard manometry in the investigation of dysphagia and, in particular, in characterising achalasia, (ii) adjunctive testing with larger volumes of water or solids during HRM, (iii) oesophageal manometry prior to antireflux surgery, (iv) pH/impedance monitoring in patients with reflux symptoms not responding to high dose proton pump inhibitors and (v) pH monitoring in all patients with reflux symptoms responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned, but combined pH/impedance monitoring in those not responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG.

Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus

Clinical history, questionnaire data and response to antisecretory therapy are insufficient to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD in isolation, but are of value in determining need for further investigation. Conclusive evidence for reflux on oesophageal testing include advanced grade erosive oesophagitis (LA grades C and D), long-segment Barrett's mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal oesophageal acid exposure time (AET) >6% on ambulatory pH or pH-impedance monitoring. A normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, but provides supportive evidence refuting GERD in conjunction with distal AET <4% and <40 reflux episodes on pH-impedance monitoring off proton pump inhibitors. Reflux-symptom association on ambulatory reflux monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux triggered symptoms, and may predict a better treatment outcome when present. When endoscopy and pH or pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (histopathology scores, dilated intercellular spaces), motor evaluation (hypotensive lower oesophageal sphincter, hiatus hernia and oesophageal body hypomotility on high-resolution manometry) and novel impedance metrics (baseline impedance, postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index) can add confidence for a GERD diagnosis; however, diagnosis cannot be based on these findings alone. An assessment of anatomy, motor function, reflux burden and symptomatic phenotype will therefore help direct management. Future GERD management strategies should focus on defining individual patient phenotypes based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the oesophagogastric junction and psychometrics defining symptomatic presentations.

Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: Update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group

BACKGROUND

An international group of experts evaluated and revised recommendations for ambulatory reflux monitoring for the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

Literature search was focused on indications and technical recommendations for GERD testing and phenotypes definitions. Statements were proposed and discussed during several structured meetings.

KEY RESULTS

Reflux testing should be performed after cessation of acid suppressive medication in patients with a low likelihood of GERD. In this setting, testing can be either catheter-based or wireless pH-monitoring or pH-impedance monitoring. In patients with a high probability of GERD (esophagitis grade C and D, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, peptic stricture, previous positive pH monitoring) and persistent symptoms, pH-impedance monitoring should be performed on treatment. Recommendations are provided for data acquisition and analysis. Esophageal acid exposure is considered as pathological if acid exposure time (AET) is greater than 6% on pH testing. Number of reflux episodes and baseline impedance are exploratory metrics that may complement AET. Positive symptom reflux association is defined as symptom index (SI) >50% or symptom association probability (SAP) >95%. A positive symptom-reflux association in the absence of pathological AET defines hypersensitivity to reflux.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

The consensus group determined that grade C or D esophagitis, peptic stricture, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, and esophageal acid exposure greater >6% are sufficient to define pathological GERD. Further testing should be considered when none of these criteria are fulfilled.

pH Impedance vs. traditional pH monitoring in clinical practice: an outcome study

BACKGROUND

The addition of impedance to 24-h pH monitoring has allowed detection of weakly acidic reflux, but the extent to which pH-impedance (pH-MII) monitoring improves outcomes is unknown.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study. Patients referred for pH or pH-MII monitoring completed a standardized questionnaire on improvement in the dominant symptom, their satisfaction, and treatment at 3 and 12 months after the test during a telephone interview.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients (mean age, 52 years, range, 19-82 years; 35 % with typical symptoms; and 89 % tested off therapy) completed pH (n = 92) or pH-MII monitoring (n = 92) over a period of 15 months. The two arms were similar in terms of demographic, clinical, and endoscopic variables. Ten patients in the pH-MII arm showed evidence of weakly acidic reflux disease. There was no difference in the percentage of patients in the pH and pH-MII monitoring arms who experienced improvement in their dominant symptom after 3 (58 vs. 63 %; p = 0.621) or 12 months (66 vs. 70 %; p = 0.234), and the same was true for patient satisfaction. There were also no between-group difference in the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after 3 (63 vs. 68.5 %; p = 0.437) or 12 months (47 vs. 60.5 %; p = 0.051). PPIs were prescribed more frequently after a positive test (p < 0.001) although they were used by 45.6 % of the negative patients. Only one patient underwent fundoplication.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-thirds of patients undergoing pH-MII monitoring experience a positive outcome, similarly to what occurs after traditional pH monitoring. Physicians often pay little attention to the test results, especially if they are negative.

The Clinical Value of Deflation Cough in Chronic Coughers With Reflux Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Patients with deflation cough (DC), the cough-like expulsive effort(s) evoked by maximal lung emptying during a slow vital capacity maneuver, also present symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. DC can be inhibited by prior intake of antacids. We wished to assess DC prevalence and association between DC and chemical characteristics of refluxate in patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.

METHODS

A total of 157 consecutive outpatients underwent DC assessment and 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH) monitoring; 93/157 also had chronic cough. Patients performed two to four slow vital capacity maneuvers and DC was detected aurally. Subsequently, they underwent 24-h MII-pH monitoring, the outcomes of which were defined as abnormal when acid or non-acid reflux events were > 73.

RESULTS

DC occurred in 46/157 patients, 18 of whom had abnormal MII-pH outcomes; 28 of the remaining 111 patients without DC also had abnormal MII-pH findings. Thus, in the patients as a group, there was no association between DC and MII-pH outcomes. DC occurred in 40/93 of the chronic coughers; 15 of whom had acid reflux. All but 2 of the 53 patients without DC had normal MII-pH outcomes (P < .001), and the negative predictive value of DC for excluding acid reflux was 96.2%. At follow-up, 65% of coughers showed significant improvement after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall prevalence of DC was 29%, increasing to 43% in chronic coughers in whom the absence of DC virtually excludes acid reflux. Therefore, DC assessment may represent a useful screening test for excluding acid reflux in chronic coughers with reflux symptoms.