A Patel1, G S Sayuk1, C P Gyawali1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Positive symptom association probability (SAP) with physiologic esophageal acid exposure time (AET) on pH-impedance monitoring defines reflux hypersensitivity (RH), a correlate of acid sensitivity on pH monitoring. We evaluated prevalence, clinical characteristics, and symptomatic outcomes of RH in a prospective observational cohort with reflux symptoms undergoing pH-impedance monitoring. METHODS: Reflux hypersensitivity was diagnosed when SAP was positive with pH- and/or impedance-detected reflux events with physiologic AET. Symptom burden was assessed using dominant symptom intensity (DSI, product of symptom severity and frequency on 5-point Likert scales) and global symptom severity (GSS, global esophageal symptoms on 100-mm visual analog scales) by questionnaire, both at baseline and on prospective follow-up. Clinical characteristics and predictors of symptomatic improvement were assessed with univariate and multivariate analyses. KEY RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (29%) met criteria for RH, of which 53 patients (53.7 ± 1.8 years, 66% F) were contacted after 3.3 ± 0.2 years for follow-up. Reflux hypersensitivity was detected on pH-impedance testing both on and off antisecretory therapy; pH alone missed 51% of RH. About 57% reported ≥50% GSS improvement. Sixteen patients undergoing antireflux surgery (ARS) reported better symptom improvement compared to 37 patients treated medically (GSS change: p = 0.005; DSI change: p = 0.04). Hiatus hernia (p = 0.03) and surgical management (p ≤ 0.04) predicted symptom improvement on univariate analysis, while acid sensitivity was a negative predictor for outcome on both univariate (p = 0.02) and multivariate analyses (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Reflux hypersensitivity is a mechanism for persistent reflux symptoms in almost one-third of patients undergoing pH-impedance testing. While acid sensitivity predicts suboptimal symptom improvement, antireflux therapy may improve RH in select settings.
BACKGROUND: Positive symptom association probability (SAP) with physiologic esophageal acid exposure time (AET) on pH-impedance monitoring defines reflux hypersensitivity (RH), a correlate of acid sensitivity on pH monitoring. We evaluated prevalence, clinical characteristics, and symptomatic outcomes of RH in a prospective observational cohort with reflux symptoms undergoing pH-impedance monitoring. METHODS: Reflux hypersensitivity was diagnosed when SAP was positive with pH- and/or impedance-detected reflux events with physiologic AET. Symptom burden was assessed using dominant symptom intensity (DSI, product of symptom severity and frequency on 5-point Likert scales) and global symptom severity (GSS, global esophageal symptoms on 100-mm visual analog scales) by questionnaire, both at baseline and on prospective follow-up. Clinical characteristics and predictors of symptomatic improvement were assessed with univariate and multivariate analyses. KEY RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (29%) met criteria for RH, of which 53 patients (53.7 ± 1.8 years, 66% F) were contacted after 3.3 ± 0.2 years for follow-up. Reflux hypersensitivity was detected on pH-impedance testing both on and off antisecretory therapy; pH alone missed 51% of RH. About 57% reported ≥50% GSS improvement. Sixteen patients undergoing antireflux surgery (ARS) reported better symptom improvement compared to 37 patients treated medically (GSS change: p = 0.005; DSI change: p = 0.04). Hiatus hernia (p = 0.03) and surgical management (p ≤ 0.04) predicted symptom improvement on univariate analysis, while acid sensitivity was a negative predictor for outcome on both univariate (p = 0.02) and multivariate analyses (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Reflux hypersensitivity is a mechanism for persistent reflux symptoms in almost one-third of patients undergoing pH-impedance testing. While acid sensitivity predicts suboptimal symptom improvement, antireflux therapy may improve RH in select settings.
Authors: S Rodriguez-Stanley; M Robinson; D L Earnest; B Greenwood-Van Meerveld; P B Miner Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: V M Kushnir; A Sathyamurthy; J Drapekin; S Gaddam; G S Sayuk; C P Gyawali Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Pim W Weijenborg; André J P M Smout; Caroline Verseijden; Henk A van Veen; Joanne Verheij; Wouter J de Jonge; Albert J Bredenoord Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Jean Paul Galmiche; Ray E Clouse; András Bálint; Ian J Cook; Peter J Kahrilas; William G Paterson; Andre J P M Smout Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Benjamin D Rogers; Amit Patel; Dan Wang; Gregory S Sayuk; C Prakash Gyawali Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: C Prakash Gyawali; Peter J Kahrilas; Edoardo Savarino; Frank Zerbib; Francois Mion; André J P M Smout; Michael Vaezi; Daniel Sifrim; Mark R Fox; Marcelo F Vela; Radu Tutuian; Jan Tack; Albert J Bredenoord; John Pandolfino; Sabine Roman Journal: Gut Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Morgan K Johnson; Manasa Venkatesh; Natalie Liu; Catherine R Breuer; Amber L Shada; Jacob A Greenberg; Anne O Lidor; Luke M Funk Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 3.452