The role of nonacid reflux in laryngopharyngeal reflux diseases

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Can Mutually Influence

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the mutually relationship between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD).

METHODS

All included patients completed simultaneous 24-hour hypopharyngeal intraluminal multichannel impedance pH monitoring (24h-MII-pH), Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), and Reflux Finding Score (RFS). The LPRD diagnosis was based on the occurrence of ≥1 acid or non-acid hypopharyngeal proximal reflux episode(HRE), GERD was defined as a length of time >4.0% of the 24-hour recording spent below pH 4.0 or a DeMeester score >14.72. Patients with both positive LPRD and GERD were classified as LPRD & GERD group, patients with positive LPRD and negative GERD were classified as ILPRD group, patients with negative LPRD and positive GERD were classified as IGERD group, and patients with both negative LPRD and GERD were classified as N group. The differences in clinical characteristics of reflux between the groups were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 437 patients were included, including 248 (56.75%) in the ILPRD group, 98 (22.43%) in the LPRD & GERD group, 23 (5.26%) in the IGERD group, and 68 (15.56%) in the N group. There was no significant difference between the types of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with GERD. The number of weak acid/acid/gas/liquid HREs was significantly more in LPRD & GERD patients than in ILPRD patients (P < 0.01), and the number of distal acid reflux events and Longest distal acid clearance time were significantly higher in LPRD & GERD patients than in IGERD patients (P > 0.01).

CONCLUSION

GERD and LPRD are not the same disease but can mutually influence. Combined GERD increased all types of laryngopharyngeal reflux events in patients with LPRD, whereas combined LPRD only increased acidic distal reflux events and acid clearance time in patients with GERD.

Salivary pH testing in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

To determine salivary pH in patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR) and compare it with that of normal individuals. A cross sectional analytical study was done. Adults with LPR as determined by Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) > 13 and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) > 7 were included in LPR group. Normal healthy adult participants with Reflux Symptom Index ≤ 3 and Reflux Finding Score ≤ 2 were included in non LPR group.32 participants were included in each groups. Salivary pH was determined in all participants using a standardized pH meter. Difference in salivary pH between two groups was statistically analyzed. The mean salivary pH in LPR group was 7.43 ± 0.77 and in non LPR group 7.0 ± 0.77. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean salivary pH between the two groups as determined by p value 0.004. The results of our exploratory study showed statistically significant difference in salivary pH between LPR and non LPR group. The salivary pH in 10(31.2%) out of 32 participants in LPR group was beyond the normal range and surprisingly the value was > 7.6, which was in contrast to acidic pH that was expected as per hypothesis. The rest 68.8% in LPR group had pH in the normal range. However salivary pH as a modality for diagnosing LPR cannot be concluded from such preliminary study with a small study population. This study forms a basis for future research for the role of salivary pH in LPR with better study designs and finer modalities of pH testing.

A Novel Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease Model for Bama Pigs

OBJECTIVE

To develop a novel Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease (LPRD) model in Bama pigs through endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy.

METHODS

A total of eight 8-month-old Bama pigs were randomly assigned to either the control or surgery group. Prior to intervention, upper esophageal sphincter (UES) manometry and laryngopharyngeal Dx-pH monitoring were conducted to establish baseline physiological parameters for each pig. Subsequently, the surgery group underwent endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy, while the control group did not. Two weeks postintervention, these procedures were repeated to evaluate changes in UES contractility and the occurrence of reflux events. At week eight postsurgery, mucosal tissues from both groups were harvested for histological analysis. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining was used to assess inflammation, while transmission electron microscopy (TEM) examined alterations in intercellular spaces and desmosomes.

RESULTS

The mean UES pressures in the control and surgery groups were 59 ± 9 mmHg and 68 ± 12 mmHg, respectively. In the surgery group, there was a significant decrease in UES pressure 2weeks after the operation compared to preoperative values (P = 0.005), whereas no significant change was observed in the control group (P = 0.488). Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) was successfully induced in the surgery group as evidenced by reflux events with pH <5.0, which were not detected in the control group. HE staining revealed marked inflammatory cell infiltration and submucosal gland expansion in throat tissues of the surgery group Bama pigs. TEM further showed enlarged intercellular spaces and reduced desmosome numbers in the laryngopharyngeal epithelium compared to controls.

CONCLUSION

Given analogous throat epithelial structures to humans, Bama pigs are an appropriate species for an LPRD animal model. Endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy effectively induces LPR and observable pathological changes in Bama pigs, providing a valuable platform for further research into LPRD pathophysiology.

Can pepsin immunohistochemical staining of laryngeal lesions accurately diagnose non-acid laryngeal reflux?

BACKGROUND

Non-acid reflux is the most common form of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, the damage caused by non-acid reflux to the laryngeal mucosa is weaker than that caused by acid reflux.

AIMS

To evaluate whether pepsin immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of laryngeal lesions can accurately diagnose acidic and non-acidic LPR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring was performed, and the patients were divided into acid reflux and non-acid reflux groups. Pathological sections of laryngeal lesions were examined using pepsin IHC staining, which was positive when pepsin was detected in the cytoplasm.

RESULTS

The study included 136 patients, with 58 in the acid reflux group, 43 in the non-acid reflux group, and 35 in the without reflux group. There were no significant differences in the positive rate of pepsin IHC staining between the non-acid and acid reflux groups (p = .421). The sensitivity of pepsin IHC staining for the diagnosis of acid and non-acid reflux was 94.8% and 90.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of pepsin IHC staining for laryngeal lesions in the diagnosis of non-acidic LPR is satisfactory.

SIGNIFICANCE

Pepsin IHC staining is suitable for LPR screening of patients with laryngeal lesions as it is economical, non-invasive, and highly sensitive.

Optimal Timing of the Salivary Pepsin Test for the Diagnosis of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the optimal time point for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) through combining 24-h hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (24-h HEMII-pH) monitoring and the multi-time point salivary pepsin test (MTPSPT).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective uncontrolled trial.

METHOD

Patients with and without LPR symptoms were included as the test group and the control group, respectively. The patients in the test group underwent 24-h HEMII-pH and MTPSPT. The results of 24-h HEMII-pH were used as a diagnostic criterion for LPR, and the diagnostic value of salivary pepsin tests performed at different time points was compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were included. Based on 24-h HEMII-pH, the positive rate of LPR in the test group of patients was 84.00%. In the control group, only one person (3.57%) had a positive salivary pepsin test result. The area under the curve (AUC) of the MTPSPT was 0.827. In addition, we separately calculated the AUC of the combined salivary pepsin test at different time points, and found good diagnostic value (AUC = 0.799) when the test was combined with the waking, 1 and 2 h after breakfast and lunch, and 1 h after dinner tests. However, when the number of tests were further increased, the diagnostic value did not improve significantly.

CONCLUSION

Salivary pepsin testing combined with waking, 1 h and 2 h after breakfast and lunch, and 1 h after dinner has almost the same diagnostic value as MTPSPT, and testing at these time points can be an effective method for diagnosing LPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2022.

Does hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux have to be 24 h?

PURPOSE

To investigate the diagnostic value of combined multi-timepoint salivary pepsin testing (MTPSPT) and hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and whether an appropriate reduction in the duration of HEMII-pH would affect the accuracy of diagnosis of LPR.

METHODS

Recruited patients were studied with both MTPSPT and HEMII-pH. The diagnosis of LPR was based on the occurrence of > 1 reflux event and/or positive results on any of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value of combined diagnosis was studied through combining a breakdown of the 24-h HEMII-pH finding and the results of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value was expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

Based on 24-h HEMII-pH and MTPSPT, the positive rate of LPR was 83.33% and 74.69%, respectively. According to the combined diagnosis, the positive rate of LPR was 90.74%. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined diagnosis both were 89.51% and 100%, when the HEMII-pH intervals were 7 a.m.-6 p.m. and 7 a.m.-7 p.m., respectively. However, when the monitoring time was extended to 8 p.m. and bedtime, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the combined diagnosis both were 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of MTPSPT and HEMII-pH increased the sensitivity and accuracy of diagnosis of LPR. For patients with positive MTPSPT results, the duration of HEMII-pH can be appropriately shortened to reduce patient sufferings.

Correlation and Influencing Factors Between Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease and Sleep Status in Patients

Objective

To observe the correlation between laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) and patients' sleep status, and to explore the related factors of LPRD.

Methods

Four hundred and sixteen patients who visited the otorhinolaryngology clinic in our hospital from June 2019 to June 2021 were selected as the research subjects. According to the scale of reflux symptom index, the subjects were divided into a patients group (120 patients) with an the reflux symptom index (RSI) &gt; 13 and a control group (296 patients) with an RSI ≤ 13 according to the RSI scale score. General patient information was collected. The sleep state and emotional state of patients in the two groups were evaluated, and the related influencing factors for LPRD were also evaluated. The correlation between sleep state and depression in LPRD patients was analyzed.

Results

Four hundred and sixteen patients were divided into patients group and control group according to RSI score, the ratio of the two groups was 1:2.47. In the patients group, the common symptoms of RSI score and the top three of the total score were as follows: Foreign body sensation in throat in 112 patients, 438 points; Keep voice clear in 108 patients, 381 points; Excessive phlegm or nasal discharge reflux in 101 patients, 348 points. The PSQI and HADS scores in the patients group were higher than those in the control group (t = 19.990, 13.007, 14.690, P all &lt;0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that high-fat diet and high PSQI score were the risk factors for the development of LPRD (P = 0.012, P = 0.007). According to the PSQI score, the patients in the patients group were divided into 35 patients with abnormal PSQI score, 85 patients with normal PSQI score, and the HADS scores of those with abnormal PSQI score were all lower than those with normal PSQI score (P &gt; 0.05). The PSQI score of the patients in the patients group was positively correlated with the HADS score (r = 0.714, P = 0.013).

Conclusion

Sleep disorder may lead to the occurrence or aggravation of anxiety and depression in patients with LPRD, and it is an independent risk factor for the development of LPRD. Clinical attention to the treatment of sleep disorders in patients with LPRD may be conducive to improving the efficacy of LPRD.

Normative Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Metrics for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review of 720 Healthy Individuals

OBJECTIVES

To review the normative data for acid, weakly acid, and nonacid proximal esophageal (PRE) and hypopharyngeal reflux (HRE) events in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) using ambulatory reflux monitoring.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus.

REVIEW METHODS

A literature search was conducted about the normative data for PRE and HRE on multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH), hypopharyngeal-esophageal MII-pH (HEMII-pH), or oropharyngeal pH monitoring using PICOTS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing, and setting) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statements. Outcomes reviewed included device characteristics, impedance/pH sensor placements, study duration, number/average and percentiles of PRE or HRE occurrence, and the event characteristics (pH, composition, and position).

RESULTS

Of 154 identified studies, 18 met criteria for analysis, including 720 healthy individuals. HEMII-pH, MII-pH, and oropharyngeal pH monitoring were used in 7, 6, and 5 studies, respectively. The definition and inclusion/exclusion criteria of healthy individuals varied substantially across studies, with 6 studies considering only digestive symptoms to exclude potential LPR patients. Substantial heterogeneity across studies was noted, including impedance/pH sensor placements/configurations and definitions of composition (liquid, gas, mixed) and type (acid, weakly acid, nonacid) of PRE/HRE. The 95th percentile thresholds were 10 to 73 events for PRE, 0 to 10 events for HRE on HEMII-pH, and 40 to 128 for events with pH <6.0 on oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Most HREs were nonacid and occurred upright. The mean HRE among healthy individuals was 1.

CONCLUSION

The low number of studies and the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, definitions, and characterization of PRE and HRE limit the establishment of consensual normative criteria for LPR on ambulatory reflux monitoring. Future large multicenter studies are needed.

Evaluation of Oropharyngeal pH-Monitoring in the Assessment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

BACKGROUND

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent disorder. The aim of the present retrospective cohort study was to evaluate oropharyngeal pH-monitoring using a novel scoring system for LPR.

METHODS

In a total of 180 consecutive patients with possible LPR, reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and transnasal esophagoscopy were carried out for further investigation.

RESULTS

In our series, 99 (55%) patients had severe LPR, 29 (16%) cases presented with moderate and 23 (13%) with mild severity, 9 (5%) subjects revealed neutral values, and 7 (4%) individuals were alkaline, while 13 (7%) patients had no LPR. In detecting LPR, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of oropharyngeal pH-monitoring was 95%, 93% and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oropharyngeal pH-monitoring is a reliable tool in the assessment of LPR, but the pH graphs have to be precisely analyzed and interpreted in context with other validated diagnostic tests.