Literature DB >> 24782404

Correlation between Reflux and multichannel intraluminal impedance pH monitoring in untreated volunteers.

Marie E Jetté1, Eric A Gaumnitz, Martin A Birchall, Nathan V Welham, Susan L Thibeault.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Although probable causative agents have been identified (e.g., refluxate components, tobacco smoke), the definitive mechanism for inflammation-related laryngeal mucosal damage remains elusive. Multichannel intraluminal impedance combined with pH monitoring (MII/pH) has emerged as a sensitive tool for diagnosis and characterization of gastroesophageal reflux disease with laryngopharyngeal manifestations. To determine the relationship between laryngeal signs and MII/pH, we examined correlations between Reflux Finding Score (RFS) ratings of videostroboscopic laryngeal examinations and findings from MII/pH. STUDY
DESIGN: Correlational study.
METHODS: Healthy, untreated volunteers (n = 142) underwent reflux diagnosis using data acquired from MII/pH testing. Eight trained clinicians performed RFS ratings of corresponding laryngeal examinations. Averaged RFS ratings were compared to MII/pH data using Pearson correlation coefficients. The relationship between RFS and MII/pH findings and demographic/clinical information (age, sex, smoking status, reflux) was assessed using general linear modeling. Rater reliability was evaluated.
RESULTS: Posterior commissure hypertrophy was negatively correlated with minutes of nonacid refluxate (R = -0.21, P = .0115). General linear modeling revealed that 28% to 40% of the variance in ratings of ventricular obliteration, erythema/hyperemia, vocal fold edema, diffuse laryngeal edema, posterior commissure hypertrophy, and granulation/granuloma could be explained by main and interaction effects of age, sex, smoking status, and reflux. Intra- and inter-rater reliability for RFS were poor-fair.
CONCLUSIONS: These results support the theory that the RFS is not specific for reflux in healthy, untreated volunteers, suggesting there may be alternate explanations for inflammatory clinical signs commonly ascribed to reflux in this population.
© 2014 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Impedance monitoring; Reflux Finding Score; gastroesophageal reflux; laryngopharyngeal reflux; laryngopharyngeal reflux diagnosis; pH monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24782404      PMCID: PMC4203695          DOI: 10.1002/lary.24737

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  29 in total

Review 1.  Symptoms and findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Authors:  Peter C Belafsky; Gregory N Postma; Milan R Amin; James A Koufman
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.697

2.  Prevalence and causes of dysphonia in a large treatment-seeking population.

Authors:  Seth M Cohen; Jaewhan Kim; Nelson Roy; Carl Asche; Mark Courey
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Prevalence of laryngeal irritation signs associated with reflux in asymptomatic volunteers: impact of endoscopic technique (rigid vs. flexible laryngoscope).

Authors:  Claudio F Milstein; Samer Charbel; Douglas M Hicks; Tom I Abelson; Joel E Richter; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  How much pharyngeal exposure is "normal"? Normative data for laryngopharyngeal reflux events using hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance (HMII).

Authors:  Toshitaka Hoppo; Alejandro F Sanz; Katie S Nason; Thomas L Carroll; Clark Rosen; Daniel P Normolle; Nicholas J Shaheen; James D Luketich; Blair A Jobe
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS).

Authors:  P C Belafsky; G N Postma; J A Koufman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  First agreement analysis and day-to-day comparison of pharyngeal pH monitoring with pH/impedance monitoring in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Authors:  Valentin Becker; Simone Graf; Christoph Schlag; Tibor Schuster; Hubertus Feussner; Roland M Schmid; Monther Bajbouj
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Lack of international consensus in low-risk drinking guidelines.

Authors:  Nina A F F Furtwaengler; Richard O de Visser
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Rev       Date:  2012-06-05

8.  Gene expression changes of inflammatory mediators in posterior laryngitis due to laryngopharyngeal reflux and evolution with PPI treatment: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Susan L Thibeault; Marshall E Smith; Kathryn Peterson; Riitta Ylitalo-Moller
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 9.  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

10.  The association between laryngeal pseudosulcus and laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Authors:  Peter C Belafsky; Gregory N Postma; James A Koufman
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.497

View more
  6 in total

1.  The Edematous and Erythematous Airway Does Not Denote Pathologic Gastroesophageal Reflux.

Authors:  Rachel Rosen; Paul D Mitchell; Janine Amirault; Manali Amin; Karen Watters; Reza Rahbar
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 4.406

2.  The diagnostic value of 24-hour ambulatory intraesophageal pH-impedance in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms comparable with typical symptoms.

Authors:  Yusuf S Sakin; Rukiye Vardar; Baha Sezgin; Zeynep Erdogan Cetin; Yasemin Alev; Esra Yildirim; Tayfun Kirazli; Serhat Bor
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 3.  Clinical Update Findings about pH-Impedance Monitoring Features in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients.

Authors:  Jerome R Lechien
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 4.964

4.  Laryngeal T regulatory cells in the setting of smoking and reflux.

Authors:  Marie E Jetté; Christine M Seroogy; Susan L Thibeault
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  The human laryngeal microbiome: effects of cigarette smoke and reflux.

Authors:  Marie E Jetté; Kimberly A Dill-McFarland; Alissa S Hanshew; Garret Suen; Susan L Thibeault
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Role of PH Monitoring in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients with Voice Disorders.

Authors:  Swati Maldhure; Ramanathan Chandrasekharan; Amit-Kumar Dutta; Ashok Chacko; Mary Kurien
Journal:  Iran J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.