Su Il Kim1,2, Su Jin Jeong3, Oh Eun Kwon2, Jung Min Park2, Jeon Gang Doo2, Sang-In Park4,5, Bo-Hyung Kim4,5, Young Chan Lee2, Young-Gyu Eun6,7, Seong-Gyu Ko8. 1. Department of Biomedical Science and Technology, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, #1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Korea. 3. Statistics Support Part, Kyung Hee Medical Science Research Institute, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 5. East-West Medical Research Institute, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Biomedical Science and Technology, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. ygeun@hanmail.net. 7. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, #1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Korea. ygeun@hanmail.net. 8. Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze pharyngeal reflux episodes in patients with suspected LPR versus healthy subjects using 24-h MII-pH monitoring. METHODS: One hundred twenty-one patients who visited our clinic with a chief complaint of LPR-related symptoms and underwent 24-h MII-pH monitoring were enrolled prospectively. Also, 27 healthy subjects were enrolled and underwent 24-h MII-pH monitoring during the same period. We analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy comprehensively to determine appropriate cut-off values of pharyngeal reflux episodes in 24-h MII-pH monitoring to diagnose patients with LPR. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 121 patients with suspected LPR showed no pharyngeal reflux episodes, while 92 showed more than one pharyngeal reflux event. In contrast, the 22 healthy subjects showed no pharyngeal reflux episodes, three showed one reflux event, and two showed two reflux events. A cut-off value of ≥ 1 showed best accuracy reflected by combined sensitivity and specificity values, while ≥ 2 demonstrated better specificity with slight loss of sensitivity and slightly lower overall accuracy, suggesting cut-off value of ≥ 1 pharyngeal reflux episodes is a good clinical indicator. CONCLUSION: A cut-off value of ≥ 1 in pharyngeal reflux episodes on 24-h MII-pH monitoring in patients with suspected LPR might be an acceptable diagnostic tool for LPR.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze pharyngeal reflux episodes in patients with suspected LPR versus healthy subjects using 24-h MII-pH monitoring. METHODS: One hundred twenty-one patients who visited our clinic with a chief complaint of LPR-related symptoms and underwent 24-h MII-pH monitoring were enrolled prospectively. Also, 27 healthy subjects were enrolled and underwent 24-h MII-pH monitoring during the same period. We analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy comprehensively to determine appropriate cut-off values of pharyngeal reflux episodes in 24-h MII-pH monitoring to diagnose patients with LPR. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 121 patients with suspected LPR showed no pharyngeal reflux episodes, while 92 showed more than one pharyngeal reflux event. In contrast, the 22 healthy subjects showed no pharyngeal reflux episodes, three showed one reflux event, and two showed two reflux events. A cut-off value of ≥ 1 showed best accuracy reflected by combined sensitivity and specificity values, while ≥ 2 demonstrated better specificity with slight loss of sensitivity and slightly lower overall accuracy, suggesting cut-off value of ≥ 1 pharyngeal reflux episodes is a good clinical indicator. CONCLUSION: A cut-off value of ≥ 1 in pharyngeal reflux episodes on 24-h MII-pH monitoring in patients with suspected LPR might be an acceptable diagnostic tool for LPR.