Literature DB >> 20835772

Loss of alkalization in proximal esophagus: a new diagnostic paradigm for patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Shahin Ayazi1, Jeffrey A Hagen, Joerg Zehetner, Matt Lilley, Priyanka Wali, Florian Augustin, Arzu Oezcelik, Helen J Sohn, John C Lipham, Steven R Demeester, Tom R DeMeester.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cervical esophageal pH monitoring using a pH threshold of <4 in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is disappointing. We hypothesized that failure to maintain adequate alkalization instead of acidification of the cervical esophagus may be a better indicator of cervical esophageal exposure to gastric juice. The aim of this study was to define normal values for the percent time the cervical esophagus is exposed to a pH ≥7 and to use the inability to maintain this as an indicator for diagnosis of LPR.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-nine asymptomatic volunteers had a complete foregut evaluation including pH monitoring of the cervical esophagus. Cervical esophageal exposure to a pH <4 was calculated, and the records were reanalyzed using the threshold pH ≥7. The sensitivity of these two pH thresholds was compared in a group of 51 patients with LPR symptoms that were completely relieved after an antireflux operation.
RESULTS: Compared to normal subjects, patients with LPR were less able to maintain an alkaline pH in the cervical esophagus, as expressed by a lower median percent time pH ≥ 7 (10.4 vs. 38.2, p < 0.0001). In normal subjects, the fifth percentile value for percent time pH ≥ 7 in the cervical esophagus was 19.6%. In 84% of the LPR patients (43/51), the percent time pH ≥ 7 were below the threshold of 19.6%. In contrast, 69% (35/51) had an abnormal test when the pH records were analyzed using the percent time pH < 4. Of the 16 patients with a false negative test using pH < 4, 11 (69%) were identified as having an abnormal study when the threshold of pH ≥ 7 was used.
CONCLUSION: Normal subjects should have a pH ≥7 in cervical esophagus for at least 19.6% of the monitored period. Failure to maintain this alkaline environment is a more sensitive indicator in the diagnosis of the LPR and identifies two thirds of the patients with a false negative test using pH <4.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20835772     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-010-1327-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  26 in total

1.  Laryngeal mucosa: its susceptibility to damage by acid and pepsin.

Authors:  David M Bulmer; Mahmoud S Ali; Iain A Brownlee; Peter W Dettmar; Jeffrey P Pearson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.325

2.  Evaluation of submandibular salivary flow rate in different age groups.

Authors:  C A Tylenda; J A Ship; P C Fox; B J Baum
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 6.116

Review 3.  Pepsin as a marker of extraesophageal reflux.

Authors:  Tina L Samuels; Nikki Johnston
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.547

4.  Esophageal manometry and 24-hour pH monitoring in the diagnosis of pulmonary aspiration secondary to gastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  M G Patti; H T Debas; C A Pellegrini
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Gastro-oesophageal reflux and triggering of bronchial asthma: a negative report.

Authors:  T Ekström; L Tibbling
Journal:  Eur J Respir Dis       Date:  1987-09

6.  Pepsin as a causal agent of inflammation during nonacidic reflux.

Authors:  Tina L Samuels; Nikki Johnston
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.497

Review 7.  The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury.

Authors:  J A Koufman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Frequency and site of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with chest symptoms. Studies using proximal and distal pH monitoring.

Authors:  O L Gastal; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  Measurement of gastric pH in ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

Authors:  Shahin Ayazi; Jessica M Leers; Arzu Oezcelik; Emmanuele Abate; Christian G Peyre; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester; Farzaneh Banki; John C Lipham; Tom R DeMeester; Peter F Crookes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Activity/stability of human pepsin: implications for reflux attributed laryngeal disease.

Authors:  Nikki Johnston; Peter W Dettmar; Bimjhana Bishwokarma; Mark O Lively; Jamie A Koufman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Oropharyngeal Reflux Monitoring and Atypical Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Dhyanesh A Patel; Ali H Harb; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-03

2.  Findings from a novel scintigraphic gastroesophageal reflux study in asymptomatic volunteers.

Authors:  Leticia Burton; Gregory Leighton Falk; John Beattie; Daniel Novakovic; Scott Simpson; Hans Van der Wall
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2020-12-15

3.  Pharyngeal pH monitoring better predicts a successful outcome for extraesophageal reflux symptoms after antireflux surgery.

Authors:  Stephanie G Worrell; Steven R DeMeester; Christina L Greene; Daniel S Oh; Jeffrey A Hagen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Halitosis associated volatile sulphur compound levels in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Authors:  Mehmet Ozgur Avincsal; Aytug Altundag; Seckin Ulusoy; Mehmet Emre Dinc; Abdullah Dalgic; Murat Topak
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-03-05       Impact factor: 2.503

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.