Literature DB >> 27456014

Importance of esophageal manometry and pH monitoring for the evaluation of otorhinolaryngologic (ENT) manifestations of GERD. A multicenter study.

Fernando A M Herbella1, Ciro Andolfi2, Yalini Vigneswaran2, Marco G Patti2, Bruno R Pinna3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patients with otorhinolaryngologic (ear, nose, and throat-ENT) symptoms attributed to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are usually treated with medication based on the findings of nasal endoscopy and laryngoscopy only. This study aims to determine sensitivity and specificity of symptoms, nasal endoscopy, and laryngoscopy for the diagnosis of GERD as compared to pH monitoring.
METHODS: We studied 79 patients (mean age 53 years, 38 % males) in whom ENT symptoms were assumed to be secondary to GERD. All patients underwent a transnasal laryngoscopy by the ENT team and upper endoscopy and esophageal function tests by the surgical team. GERD was defined by a pathological pH monitoring.
RESULTS: Pathologic reflux by pH monitoring was documented in 36 of the 79 patients (46 %), with a mean DeMeester score of 44. In 25 of the 36 patients (69 %), distal and proximal reflux was present. Among patients with negative pH monitoring, one patient was diagnosed with achalasia. ENT symptom sensitivity for globus, hoarseness and throat clearing was respectively 11, 58, and 33 %; specificity was respectively 77, 42, and 58 %. Positive predictive value for nasal endoscopy and laryngoscopy was 46 %. Among patients with positive pH monitoring, 13 (36 %) had a hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter (p < 0.01) and 27 (34 %) had abnormal peristalsis (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the results of this study showed that (a) ENT symptoms were unreliable for the diagnosis of GERD and (b) laryngoscopy had a low positive predictive value for the diagnosis of GERD. These data confirm the importance of esophageal manometry and pH monitoring in any patient with suspected ENT manifestations of GERD before starting empiric therapy with acid-reducing medications since pathologic reflux by pH monitoring was confirmed in less than half of the patients with suspected GERD.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Esophageal manometry; Esophageal pH monitoring; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Globus; Hoarseness; Laryngoscopy; Throat clearing

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27456014     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-016-3212-1

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


  19 in total

1.  Trends in laryngopharyngeal reflux: a British ENT survey.

Authors:  P D Karkos; J Benton; S C Leong; A Karkanevatos; K Badran; V R Srinivasan; R H Temple; W J Issing
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Multicentric study: statistical correlation between clinical data and instrumental findings in laryngo-pharyngeal reflux: proposal for a new ENT classification of reflux.

Authors:  C A Leone; F Mosca
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.124

3.  Early referral for 24-h esophageal pH monitoring may prevent unnecessary treatment with acid-reducing medications.

Authors:  David A Kleiman; Matthew J Sporn; Toni Beninato; Yasmin Metz; Carl Crawford; Thomas J Fahey; Rasa Zarnegar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Correlation between oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and esophageal pH-impedance monitoring in patients with suspected GERD-related extra-esophageal symptoms.

Authors:  G Mazzoleni; C Vailati; D G Lisma; P A Testoni; S Passaretti
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 3.598

5.  Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and gastroesophageal reflux. Implications for treatment.

Authors:  Marco E Allaix; Piero M Fisichella; Imre Noth; Fernando A Herbella; Bernardo Borraez Segura; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  P J Byrne; C Power; P Lawlor; N Ravi; J V Reynolds
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.429

7.  Gastroesophageal reflux disease and antireflux surgery-what is the proper preoperative work-up?

Authors:  Brian Bello; Marco Zoccali; Roberto Gullo; Marco E Allaix; Fernando A Herbella; Arunas Gasparaitis; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  How many cases of laryngopharyngeal reflux suspected by laryngoscopy are gastroesophageal reflux disease-related?

Authors:  Nicola de Bortoli; Andrea Nacci; Edoardo Savarino; Irene Martinucci; Massimo Bellini; Bruno Fattori; Linda Ceccarelli; Francesco Costa; Maria Gloria Mumolo; Angelo Ricchiuti; Vincenzo Savarino; Stefano Berrettini; Santino Marchi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Normal and abnormal proximal esophageal acid exposure: results of ambulatory dual-probe pH monitoring.

Authors:  R Dobhan; D O Castell
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Ratio between proximal/distal gastroesophageal reflux does not discriminate abnormal proximal reflux.

Authors:  Sebastião Carlos Pannocchia Neto; Fernando A M Herbella; Luciana C Silva; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease: how an antireflux procedure works (or does not work).

Authors:  Fernando A M Herbella; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-07-23

Review 2.  Paraesophageal Hernia and Reflux Prevention: Is One Fundoplication Better than the Other?

Authors:  Ciro Andolfi; Alejandro Plana; Sara Furno; Piero Marco Fisichella
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  Evaluation of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  P Marco Fisichella; Ciro Andolfi; George Orthopoulos
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  ACG Clinical Guidelines: Clinical Use of Esophageal Physiologic Testing.

Authors:  C Prakash Gyawali; Dustin A Carlson; Joan W Chen; Amit Patel; Robert J Wong; Rena H Yadlapati
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 12.045

Review 5.  Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Piero Marco Fisichella; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-07-23

6.  Pharyngeal motility in patients submitted to type I thyroplasty.

Authors:  Bruno Rezende Pinna; Fernando A M Herbella; Noemi de Biase
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-12-18
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.