THE RESULTS OF HIGH - RESOLUTION ESOPHAGEAL MANOMETRY, 24-HOUR pH-MONITORING AND PEPTEST IN PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL AND EXTRAESOPHAGEAL REFLUX SYMPTOMS

Thùy Linh Nguyễn, Đình Tùng Lê, Bảo Long Hoàng, Thị Vựng Vũ, Duy Thắng Nguyễn, Thị Minh Huế Lưu, Nhật Phương Đỗ, Vân Anh Nguyễn, Văn Long Đào, Việt Hằng Đào

Main Article Content

Abstract

Aim: To compare the characteristics of high-resolution manometry (HRM), 24-hour pH -impedance monitoring (pH-I) and Peptest between patients with esophageal symptoms, extraesophageal symptoms and those having both. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among patients having reflux symptoms and indicated with above-mentioned techniques. Patients were then classified into 3 groups: “esophageal symptoms”, “extraesophageal symptoms” and “combined symptoms” groups. Results: 136 patients were eligible, in which 27 patients had esophageal symptoms, 19 patients had extraesophageal symptoms and 90 patients had combined esophageal and extraesophageal symptoms. GerdQ and FSSG scores were significantly lower in patients only having extraesophageal symptoms. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of reflux esophagitis on endoscopy, esophageal sphincter pressures and motility disorders within groups. Acid exposure time (AET), total and acid – weakly acid – non acid reflux events, number of refluxes coming up to the upper third of esophagus also had no significances within groups. There was no difference in the quantatative and qualitative results of Peptest within groups. Conclusion: The characteristics on HRM, pH-I, and Peptest were not significantly different between patients with esophageal symptoms, extraesophageal symptoms and those having both.

Article Details

References

Goh, K.L., et al., Consensus statements and recommendations on the management of mild-to-moderate gastroesophageal reflux disease in the Southeast Asian region. JGH Open, 2021. 5(8): p. 855-863.
2. Davis, T.A. and C.P. Gyawali, Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Diagnosis and Management. J Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2024. 30(1): p. 17-28.
3. Cui, N., et al., Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: Updated examination of mechanisms, pathophysiology, treatment, and association with gastroesophageal reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol, 2024. 30(16): p. 2209-2219.
4. Katz, P.O., et al., ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am J Gastroenterol, 2022. 117(1): p. 27-56.
5. Armstrong, D., Endoscopic evaluation of gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Yale J Biol Med, 1999. 72(2-3): p. 93-100.
6. Gyawali, C.P., et al., Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus. Gut, 2018. 67(7): p. 1351-1362.
7. Ates, F. and M.F. Vaezi, Approach to the patient with presumed extraoesophageal GERD. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 2013. 27(3): p. 415-31.
8. Zelenik, K., et al., There is no correlation between signs of reflux laryngitis and reflux oesophagitis in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 2017. 37(5): p. 401-405.
9. Jaspersen, D., et al., Prevalence of extra-oesophageal manifestations in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: an analysis based on the ProGERD Study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2003. 17(12): p. 1515-20.
10. Dy, F., et al., Salivary Pepsin Lacks Sensitivity as a Diagnostic Tool to Evaluate Extraesophageal Reflux Disease. J Pediatr, 2016. 177: p. 53-58.