Soojong Chae1, Joel E Richter2. 1. The Joy McCann Culverhouse Center for Esophageal Diseases, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 72, Tampa, FL, 3361, USA. 2. The Joy McCann Culverhouse Center for Esophageal Diseases, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 72, Tampa, FL, 3361, USA. jrichte1@health.usf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: pH monitoring technologies are routinely utilized in practice to further evaluate symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). This is a review of the recent literature of the available pH monitoring technology and creates an algorithm in the diagnostic work up of a patient with GERD or LPR. RECENT FINDINGS: The catheter-free wireless pH monitor traditionally collects data for 48 h. Recent studies have found that extending to 96 h can be helpful in patients with conflicting results on the first 2 days of the study. In addition, 96 h can allow for testing both on and off of PPI therapy. The oropharyngeal monitoring device is a newer technology that is designed to aid in the diagnoses of LPR. There are limitations with this technology as there is no universal abnormal cutoff and some studies have suggested a poor correlation between multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) and the oropharyngeal monitoring device. MII-pH has recently developed two additional parameters, the measurement of three 10-min nighttime periods and the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index, both of which may increase accuracy of testing. Each of these technologies can provide unique data regarding acid reflux exposure in the esophagus and oropharynx. The wireless pH monitor performed off of PPI therapy can help to establish or exclude the diagnosis of GERD. For those patients with refractory symptoms on PPI, MII-pH study can be performed while on therapy and provides data regarding the response to treatment. Oropharyngeal pH monitoring is being utilized in some practices to aid in diagnosis of LPR, but the scientific validity is controversial.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: pH monitoring technologies are routinely utilized in practice to further evaluate symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). This is a review of the recent literature of the available pH monitoring technology and creates an algorithm in the diagnostic work up of a patient with GERD or LPR. RECENT FINDINGS: The catheter-free wireless pH monitor traditionally collects data for 48 h. Recent studies have found that extending to 96 h can be helpful in patients with conflicting results on the first 2 days of the study. In addition, 96 h can allow for testing both on and off of PPI therapy. The oropharyngeal monitoring device is a newer technology that is designed to aid in the diagnoses of LPR. There are limitations with this technology as there is no universal abnormal cutoff and some studies have suggested a poor correlation between multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) and the oropharyngeal monitoring device. MII-pH has recently developed two additional parameters, the measurement of three 10-min nighttime periods and the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index, both of which may increase accuracy of testing. Each of these technologies can provide unique data regarding acid reflux exposure in the esophagus and oropharynx. The wireless pH monitor performed off of PPI therapy can help to establish or exclude the diagnosis of GERD. For those patients with refractory symptoms on PPI, MII-pH study can be performed while on therapy and provides data regarding the response to treatment. Oropharyngeal pH monitoring is being utilized in some practices to aid in diagnosis of LPR, but the scientific validity is controversial.
Authors: Frank Zerbib; Sabine Roman; Alain Ropert; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Philippe Pouderoux; Ulriikka Chaput; François Mion; Eric Vérin; Jean-Paul Galmiche; Daniel Sifrim Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-07-18 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: E S Yuksel; J C Slaughter; N Mukhtar; M Ochieng; G Sun; M Goutte; S Muddana; C Gaelyn Garrett; M F Vaezi Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Michael Yodice; Alexandra Mignucci; Virali Shah; Christopher Ashley; Micheal Tadros Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 5.742