Acid, nonacid, and gas reflux in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease during ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance recordings

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastroesophageal reflux can be acid, nonacid, pure liquid, or a mixture of gas and liquid. We investigated the prevalence of acid and nonacid reflux and the air-liquid composition of the refluxate in ambulant healthy subjects and patients with reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory recordings were performed in 30 patients with symptomatic GERD and erosive esophagitis and in 28 controls. Esophageal pH and impedance were used to identify acid reflux (pH drop below 4.0), minor acid reflux (pH drop above 4.0), nonacid reflux (pH drop less than 1 unit + liquid reflux in impedance), and gas reflux. RESULTS: The total rate of gastroesophageal reflux episodes was similar in patients and controls. Patients with GERD had a higher proportion (45% vs. 33%) and rate of acid reflux than controls (21.5 [9-35]/24 h vs. 13 [6.5-21]/24 h; P < 0.05). One third of reflux events was nonacid in both groups. Mixed reflux of gas and liquid was the most frequent pattern with gas preceding liquid in 50%-80% of cases. Pure liquid reflux was more often acid in patients with GERD than controls (45% vs. 32%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Reflux of gastric contents was similarly frequent in patients with GERD and controls. Although there was no difference in the overall number of reflux episodes, more acidic reflux occurred in symptomatic patients with GERD, suggesting differences in gastric acid secretion or distribution.     

Predictors of outcome in an open label, therapeutic trial of high-dose omeprazole in laryngitis

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux is implicated in some cases of laryngitis. There are no established predictors of response to acid suppression therapy in suspected reflux laryngitis. AIM: In a population with laryngitis, the aim is to determine whether (a) omeprazole 20 mg tds (3 months) improves symptoms and laryngitis, and (b) the outcome in response to potent acid suppression can be predicted by esophageal and/or pharyngeal parameters during ambulatory pH monitoring or by other pretreatment variables. METHODS: From the 70 consecutive patients with laryngitis screened, 20 patients met the inclusion criteria (dysphonia >3 months; laryngoscopically demonstrated laryngitis); and 50 patients were excluded because of one or more criteria indicating alternative causes for laryngeal injury. The primary outcome measure was improvement of at least one level in a 4-point laryngitis grading at 3 months. Twenty-four-hour dual, pharyngo-esophageal pH monitoring was performed at baseline. Secondary outcomes (symptom questionnaire; computerized voice analysis) were measured at baseline, and at 6 and 12 wk. RESULTS: Response rates at 6 and 12 wk were 47% and 63%, respectively. GERD symptoms (heartburn (p= 0.03) and regurgitation (p= 0.0001)) improved. However, neither baseline GERD symptoms nor endoscopic findings predicted laryngoscopic or symptomatic response. Neither baseline laryngitis grade (p= 0.46) nor esophageal acid exposure on pH testing (p= 0.3) predicted outcome. Four of 20 patients demonstrated pharyngeal regurgitation on pH testing, all four of whom responded to potent acid suppression (p= 0.2). Computerized voice measures were not predictive of outcome, although fundamental frequency (Fo) was inversely related to baseline laryngoscopic grade. CONCLUSION: In a carefully defined population of patients with laryngitis (a) 63% have a laryngoscopic response to 3 months of potent acid suppression without significant improvement in laryngeal symptoms; (b) neither voice measures, esophageal acid exposure time, symptoms nor severity of laryngitis predict outcome; and (c) although numbers were small, all patients with a positive pharyngeal pH study responded to therapy and pharyngeal pH-metry may prove useful; (4) available evidence supports an empiric trial of high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPI), for at least 12 wk, as the initial diagnostic step for suspected reflux laryngitis.     

Reproducibility of 24-Hour Combined Multiple Intraluminal Impedance (MII) and pH Measurements in Infants and Children. Evaluation of a Diagnostic Procedure for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease in infants and children. Prolonged (24-hr) pH monitoring in the esophagus for determination of increased acid exposure has, together with endoscopy, been the only routinely implemented method for GERD diagnosis. The recently introduced multiple intraluminal impedance (MII) provides additional information about the number of both acid and nonacid episodes of retrograde bolus movement in the esophagus. The aim of this study was to investigate the day-to-day reproducibility and the interobserver variability of 24-hr combined MII (number of nonacid and acidic reflux episodes) and pH in the esophagus in infants and children. Upper endoscopy followed by 2 × 24-hr consecutive combined MII and pH monitoring was performed in 33 infants and children referred to a tertiary center for evaluation of GERD. The study was performed in a hospital setting without dietary restrictions. Bland-Altman difference versus mean plots and calculation of the limits of agreement (LOA) were used for assessment of the reproducibility of the total number of acidic and nonacidic reflux episodes. LOA for the number of acidic reflux episodes on day 2 were 0.2–5.3 times the value obtained on day 1. For the total number of nonacidic reflux episodes, LOA were 0.04–8.6; for the total number of reflux episodes, 0.3–3.3. An abnormal reflux index on one or both recording days was found in 7 of 30 patients. In conclusion, considerable day-to-day variability was found for nonacidic reflux episodes. Less variability was found for acidic reflux episodes. This variability must be taken into consideration for the use of MII in the clinical evaluation of infants and children with GERD.     

A retrospective analysis of the pharyngeal swallow in patients with a clinical diagnosis of GERD compared with normal controls: a pilot study

In gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), there is a reverse flow of gastric contents up through the esophagus and potentially into the pharynx. Some patients who have GERD have reported difficulty in oropharyngeal swallowing. This study was designed to determine whether differences in the pharyngeal swallow exist in a sample of subjects diagnosed with GERD as compared with normal controls and to identify those events that may be different from normal. Functional measurements and timing data were taken from videofluorographic studies of 9 patients with GERD and 9 age and gender-matched controls. Several subjects with GERD spontaneously utilized compensatory maneuvers despite clinically normal swallows. Results show significant differences in some swallow temporal measures between the two groups. Implications of the effects of reflux are discussed.     

Impedance signature of pharyngeal gaseous reflux

BACKGROUND: Pharyngeal impedance changes induced by various pharyngeal reflux events have not been characterized. OBJECTIVES: To characterize pharyngeal impedance changes induced by participant-perceived belching events. METHODS: We systematically evaluated pharyngeal impedance and pH changes related to 453 belch events in 11 gastroesophageal reflux disease, 10 reflux attributed-laryngitis patients and 16 controls. RESULTS: Of 453 belch events, 362 were analyzable. Of these, 72% occurred within 10 s, 93% within 20 s, 99% within 30 s and 100% within 40 s of the time that participants marked a belch event. In 15% impedance changes in the pharynx preceded, in 12% they were simultaneous and in 73% they occurred after the start of the impedance change in the proximal esophagus. Time interval between the two events ranged between 0.4+/-0.03 and 0.7+/-0.1 s. In all, there were three types of belch-induced impedance changes: (a) impedance increase, (b) impedance decrease and (c) multiphasic. Twenty percent of impedance events associated with belching had less than 50% change from baseline, whereas in 51% changes exceeded or were equal to 50%. Among events with a drop in pharyngeal impedance, only two satisfied the criteria for the liquid reflux event. CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngeal ventilation of gastric gaseous content seems to have a unique impedance signature. During pharyngeal gas reflux events, impedance changes may start before or after proximal esophageal changes. Belching may induce negative pharyngeal changes that do not meet the criteria for liquid reflux. These findings need to be taken into consideration in the analysis of pharyngeal reflux events.     

Pharyngeal reflux episodes at pH 5 in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE: The clinically used cut-off limit in reflux disease is pH 4. Yet, earlier studies have shown a poor correlation between pharyngeal reflux episodes and symptoms or laryngeal findings, and treatment results have been suboptimal. Moreover, recent data suggest that pepsin is still active at pH 5. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of pharyngeal pH 5 reflux episodes in healthy controls and to correlate these to the pH monitoring results with a cut-off limit of pH 4. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The results of double-probe 24-h pH monitoring from 35 healthy controls were reanalysed concerning the occurrence of pH decreases to pH 5. RESULTS: Pharyngeal pH 5 reflux episodes occurred in 32 healthy controls (91%). The median number of pharyngeal reflux episodes at pH 5 was 4.0. The vast majority of these reflux episodes (92%) occurred in the upright position, especially in the postprandial period. The median time pH < 5 in the pharynx was 0.1% while the upper limit of normality was 1.5%. Pharyngeal pH 5 reflux episodes were 5 times more common than pH 4 reflux episodes. There was a significant positive correlation between hypopharyngeal and oesophageal acid exposure time at both pH 4 and 5 (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngeal pH 5 reflux episodes are present in most healthy adults, mainly in upright position and in the postprandial period. The importance of these episodes for the occurrence of laryngeal symptoms and signs and for treatment response needs to be prospectively assessed.     

Composition of the postprandial refluxate in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE: It is not known whether the characteristics of the postprandial refluxate in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) differ from those observed in normal subjects. The aim of this study was to characterize the postprandial refluxate in adult patients with GERD using combined intraluminal electrical impedance and pH measurements. METHODS: Postprandial gastroesophageal reflux was assessed in 16 patients with GERD and 15 controls. pH and intraluminal electrical impedance were used to identify acid and nonacid reflux of liquid, mixed (liquid + gas) or gas. RESULTS: Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) and reflux of gastric contents were equally frequent in both groups. However, patients with GERD had more acid reflux [8 (4.7-10.5)/h vs 3.5 (2.6-6)/h, p < 0.05], and normal subjects had more nonacid reflux [5 (4.3-6.7)/h is 3 (1-3.5)/h, p < 0.05]. Gas reflux was less frequent in GERD than in controls (51% vs 68%; p < 0.05). Pure liquid reflux, however, was more frequent (40% vs 26%, p < 0.05) and twice as likely to be acid in GERD. During TLESRs, liquid acid reflux was more frequent in GERD than in controls. CONCLUSIONS: TLESRs and reflux of gastric contents are similarly frequent in patients with GERD and controls. However, patients with GERD have more acid reflux and less nonacid reflux. Differences in the air-liquid composition of the refluxate may contribute to the higher rate of acid reflux observed in these patients.     

Characteristics of gastroesophageal reflux in symptomatic patients with and without excessive esophageal acid exposure

OBJECTIVE: In some patients with a physiological esophageal acid exposure, an association between reflux episodes and symptoms can be demonstrated. Besides acidity, other factors such as proximal extent may determine whether a reflux episode is perceived or not. We aimed to investigate the reflux profile of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients with physiological acid exposure. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour impedance-pH monitoring was performed in 14 GERD patients with excessive acid exposure (pH+), 14 GERD patients with physiological acid exposure (pH-), and 14 controls. All patients had a positive symptom-reflux association during 24-h monitoring (SAP+). RESULTS: The incidence of acid reflux episodes in pH- SAP+ patients (25.5 +/- 4.9) and controls (20.2 +/- 3.9) was comparable, but lower than in pH+ SAP+ patients (69.8 +/- 7.3). However, no differences in number of weakly acidic reflux episodes were observed among pH- SAP+ patients, pH+ SAP+ patients, and controls (27.2 +/- 3.8 vs 26.8 +/- 4.6 and 21.0 +/- 3.7, respectively). The proportion of reflux episodes that reached the proximal esophagus was significantly higher in the pH+ SAP+ (33.5%) and pH- SAP+ (36.0%) patients than in the controls (19.5%). Volume clearance time was longer in pH+ SAP+ (12.5 [12.5-17.0] s) compared with pH- SAP+ patients (12.0 [11.0-16.5] s) and controls (9.5 [10.0-12.5] s) (P < 0.05). Acid clearance time was also longer in pH+ SAP+ patients (55.0 [32.0-64.0] s) compared with the pH- SAP+ (16.5 [11.4-40.0] s) and controls (14 [12.0-19.1] s) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In pH- SAP+ patients, a higher proportion of reflux episodes reach the proximal esophagus than in controls. This can in part explain their symptoms.     

胃食管反流病患者口腔pH值变化的探讨

目的比较健康人与胃食管反流病（GERD）患者不同口腔黏膜的pH值及唾液缓冲能力。 方法采用二点测试法对30例胃食管反流病患者使用精密pH试纸测试不同口腔黏膜的pH值及唾液缓冲能力,并与34名健康人作对照。 结果GERD组平均pH值为6.38±0.33,显著低于对照组7.11±0.17,GERD组唾液缓冲能力3.37±0.29也显著低于对照组5.07±0.23。GERD组不同时间的口腔pH值之间存在差异,上午9: 00~11: 00口底黏膜的pH值最低,下午2: 30~4: 30硬腭黏膜pH值最高。 结论胃食管反流患者口腔呈酸性,应根据患者口腔具体情况合理用药,纠正口腔pH值异常,以预防口腔并发症的发生。     

Prevalence of respiratory symptoms and diseases associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease

AIM: Investigation of the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and diseases associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 299 subjects with GERD were submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and a symptom analysis. RESULTS: Chronic respiratory symptoms or diseases were present in 18% (56/299). Chronic cough was observed in 42/56 patients, while typical reflux symptoms such as heartburn and acid regurgitation were observed in 30/56 and 24/56 cases, respectively. The prevalence of airway diseases was chronic bronchitis 12/56, asthma 10/56, recurrent pneumonia 10/56, chronic sinusitis 7/56 and chronic laryngitis 1/56. In patients with respiratory complications pathologic acid reflux was established in 29/51 cases on the basis of the DeMeester score, while 17/51 had pathologic postprandial, nocturnal or diurnal reflux events. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed a normal esophageal mucosa in 6/56, Savary-Miller stage I esophagitis in 23/56, stage II in 15/56, stage III in 5/56 and stage IV in 6/56 patients. CONCLUSIONS: These investigations have demonstrated an abnormal 24-hour pH score in about half of the patients with GERD-associated respiratory complications, and indicated that short reflux events are characteristic of the reflux activity in one third of this population.     

Characteristics and clinical relevance of proximal esophageal pH monitoring

OBJECTIVE: It is well established that various ENT disorders and symptoms may be a manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Measuring proximal esophageal acid exposure might be useful in the evaluation of patients with suspected reflux-related ENT manifestations, but the limited available data are conflicting. The aim of the present study was to study the determinants of proximal esophageal acid exposure (PR) and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of ambulatory proximal pH monitoring. METHODS: Twenty healthy controls and 346 patients with suspected reflux disease underwent typical and atypical GERD symptom assessment, endoscopy, esophageal manometry and ambulatory combined dual esophageal pH, and Bilitec duodeno-gastro-esophageal reflux exposure (DGER) monitoring. The presence of pathological PR and its relation to symptom pattern and distal esophageal acid exposure (DR) and DGER exposure were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (16%) had pathological PR. Demographic characteristics, symptom pattern, and manometric findings did not differ in patients with normal or pathological PR. Patients with pathological PR had significantly higher DR and DGER. The multivariate analysis identified only pathological DR as an independent risk factor for the presence of pathological PR (odds ratio 4.515, 95% CI 2.48-8.23, p < 0.0001). Only 20 patients (6%) had pathological proximal reflux without pathological distal acid reflux. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present article do not support routine proximal esophageal pH monitoring as a clinical tool: PR does not differentiate patients with typical or atypical GERD manifestations and depends mainly on DR.     

Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system

OBJECTIVE: Limitations of catheter-based esophageal pH monitoring are discomfort, inconvenience, and interference with normal activity. An alternative to conventional pH monitoring is the wireless Medtronic Bravo pH System. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, performance, and tolerability of this system. METHODS: A total of 44 healthy subjects and 41 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were studied for a 2-day period. The pH telemetry capsule was positioned transorally 6 cm above the squamocolumnar junction using endoscopic measurement. The signal transmitted from the capsule was received and recorded by a small, pager-sized receiver, and pH data were subsequently uploaded to a computer for analysis. RESULTS: Successful 24-h pH studies were completed in 82 subjects (96%). During the 24-h study period the median percentage of the time that pH was <4 was 2.3% (95th percentile, 5.9%) in controls and 6.5% (range, 0.8-27.6) in GERD patients. In 76 subjects (89%), 36-48 h recordings were obtained. For the extended period the median percentage of the time that pH was <40 was 2.0% (95% percentile, 5.3%) in controls and 6.6% (range, 1.0-26.7) in GERD patients. Capsules required endoscopic removal in three subjects (4%). Optimal sensitivity in distinguishing controls from reflux patients was achieved when analyzed from the perspective of the worst of the 2 days. CONCLUSIONS: The wireless Bravo pH System successfully recorded esophageal acid exposure in 96% of the patients during a 24-h period and in 89% of subjects for >36 h. The 95th percentile for the 2-day recordings in control subjects was 5.3%, slightly higher than observed with conventional systems.     

Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux diseases in Chinese--role of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and esophageal motor dysfunction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) is the major mechanism for gastroesophageal reflux in the Western population. The major reflux mechanism in Chinese patients with GERD has not been studied before. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with GERD and 28 controls underwent stationary baseline manometry and the 24-h ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring. TLESRs were measured before and after an 850 kcal meal in the supine position. Primary peristalsis, secondary peristalsis, and esophageal acid clearance were measured by esophageal manometry. RESULTS: Total time esophageal pH 相似文献   

24-H pharyngeal pH monitoring in healthy volunteers: a normative study

BACKGROUND: Gastropharyngeal reflux has been associated with disorders of the upper and lower airways. It may be shown by pharyngeal pH-metry, but reports on normality in healthy volunteers are scarce. No definite consensus has been reached considering the upper limit of normality (ULN). The aim of the present study was therefore to quantify the occurrence of pharyngeal acid exposure (pH < 4) in healthy volunteers and, further, to examine its relation to acid exposure of the oesophagus and oesophageal motility and its occurrence in relation to age, sex, and body position. METHODS: Forty healthy volunteers underwent ambulatory 24-h pH-metry, using antimony electrodes positioned 2 cm above the upper oesophageal sphincter and 5 cm above the lower oesophageal sphincter on the basis of manometry. Technical artefacts were excluded before calculation of all results. RESULTS: Gastropharyngeal reflux occurred in most healthy volunteers without any significant relation to age, sex, or body weight. Pharyngeal acid reflux occurred mainly in the upright position. The ULN for pharyngeal acid exposure time was assessed to 0.9% (0.2% after exclusion of mealtimes). The ULN for the number of acid events in the pharynx was 18 (6.1). The corresponding ULNs for the oesophagus were 7% and 84. CONCLUSION: Gastropharyngeal reflux may be effectively monitored by ambulatory pH-metry. The present study provides reference limits, a prerequisite for evaluating the pathophysiologic importance of the phenomenon.     

Laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been extensively studied in patients with laryngeal signs and symptoms, gastroesophageal reflux being identified in approximately 50%. Few studies have investigated the incidence and significance of LPR in GERD patients. Two-hundred and seventy-six consecutive patients referred with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux had dual probe 24 h pH, esophageal manometry, GERD and ENT questionnaires. LPR was defined as at least three pharyngeal reflux events less than pH 5.0 with corresponding esophageal reflux, but excluding meal periods. Fourty-two percent of patients were positive for LPR on 24 h pH monitoring and 91.3% corresponded with an abnormal esophageal acid score. Distal esophageal acid exposure was significantly greater (P < 0.001) in patients with LPR but symptoms of GERD and regurgitation scores showed no significant differences between patients with positive and negative LPR on 24 h pH. There was no significant difference between the incidence of LPR in patients with or without laryngeal symptoms. There is a high incidence of LPR in patients with GERD but its significance for laryngeal symptoms is tenuous. Fixed distance dual probe pH monitoring allows documentation of conventional esophageal reflux and LPR.     

Twenty-four hour ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring: a multicenter report of normal values from 60 healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVES: Impedance monitoring is a new diagnostic method for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) where multiple impedance electrode pairs are placed on a standard pH catheter. It detects reflux of a liquid and/or gas bolus into the esophagus, as well as its distribution, composition, and clearing. The aim of this collaborative study is to define normal values for 24-h ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring (24-h Imp-pH), and compare bolus parameters by impedance monitoring to changes in [H(+)] measured by pH monitoring. METHODS: Sixty normal volunteers without GER symptoms underwent 24-h Imp-pH with impedance measured at six sites (centered at 3, 5, 7, 9, 15, and 17 cm above lower esophageal sphincter) and pH 5 cm above the LES. Reflux detected by impedance was characterized by the pH probe as either acid, weakly acidic, nonacid, or superimposed acid reflux. Proximal reflux was defined as reflux that reached the impedance site 15 cm above the LES. RESULTS: Reflux frequency was common upright (median-27, 25th and 75th quartile-16, 42), but rare recumbent (median-1; 0, 4). A median of 34% (14%, 49%) of upright reflux reached the proximal esophagus. There was a similar number of mixed composition (liquid + gas; 49%) and liquid-only reflux (51%). Acid reflux was two-fold more common than weakly acidic reflux (p < 0.001). Superimposed acid reflux and nonacid reflux were rare. Acid neutralization to pH 4 took twice as long as volume clearance measured by impedance. CONCLUSIONS: Combining impedance and pH monitoring improves the detection and characterization of GER. This study characterizes the frequency, duration, and extent of reflux in health and provides normal values for 24-h Imp-pH for future comparison with GERD patients.     

Laryngitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease: increasing prevalence or poor diagnostic tests?

Laryngeal signs and symptoms are often associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, such diagnoses presume that laryngeal findings may be specific for GERD. However, neither laryngoscopy, EGD or pH monitoring are specific tests for identifying GERD related laryngitis. Non-placebo controlled trials often show clinical benefit from proton pump inhibitor therapy; however, suffer from lack of controls. GERD may be one cause of laryngeal signs and symptoms in a subgroup of patients but not in all those currently so suspected. Future, studies are needed in this area to better delineate this association.     

Transient Lower Esophageal Sphincter Relaxations and Gastroesophageal Reflux Episodes in Healthy Subjects and GERD Patients During 24 Hours

Still little is known about the 24-hr pattern of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs), particularly in patients with GERD. The aim of our study was to evaluate the 24-hr esophageal and LES motor pattern and esophageal pH and to identify the relationship between TLESRs and gastroesophageal reflux in healthy subjects and in GERD patients. Ten healthy subjects and nine patients with esophagitis (grade I–II) underwent a 24-hr pH manometric recording by means of a portable electronic device. The recording aimed at identifying the temporal relationships between reflux episodes and LES motor events. The GERD patients showed a greater number of either reflux episodes or TLESRs during the 24 hr as compared to controls. While most refluxes occurred during TLESRs in both groups, a small percentage of TLESRs was followed by reflux episodes in healthy people, with only a slight increase in GERD patients. In conclusion, although representing an important motor pattern during gastroesophageal reflux both in healthy subjects and in patients with GERD, TLESR could probably be considered one of the pathophysiologic mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux more than the primary cause of reflux episodes.     

Belching: dyspepsia or gastroesophageal reflux disease?

OBJECTIVES: Eructation (belching) is a common symptom seen in clinical practice. Because either belching or heartburn may result from transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations, it has been proposed that belching may be a manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In this retrospective study we evaluated the prevalence of belching in dyspepsia and GERD and the relation of belching to acid reflux events documented by pH monitoring. METHODS: We examined the prevalence, frequency, and severity of belching and other GERD symptoms by use of standardized questionnaires in 180 GERD patients (group A) and 78 dyspeptic controls (group B) referred for evaluation at our institution. GERD was defined as either endoscopic esophagitis (or Barrett's esophagus) or positive DeMeester score (>14.2) on pH monitoring or both. Dyspeptic patients had normal endoscopy and pH studies. We also analyzed the relationship of belching to acid reflux events during the 24-h period of pH studies. RESULTS: Of 180 GERD patients, 132 (70%) reported belching during pH monitoring, versus 63 of 78 dyspeptic patients (80%) (p = ns). Similarly, 163 of 180 GERD patients (90%) reported heartburn versus 64 of 78 of dyspeptic patients (82%) (p = ns). Review of symptom questionnaires revealed no significant difference in belching severity between groups. However, heartburn and acid regurgitation were significantly more severe among GERD patients. There was a significantly higher correlation of both heartburn and belching with acid events in patients with GERD compared with patients with dyspepsia. In addition, although both belching and heartburn were significantly improved in patients with GERD, belching scores remained unchanged after proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS: Belching is as common and as severe in patients with dyspepsia as it is in patients with GERD. Belching and heartburn in GERD patients are more likely correlated with episodes of pathological acid reflux. Because belching cannot be clinically used as a discriminatory symptom, ambulatory pH monitoring should be considered to elucidate the relationship of belching to acid reflux in patients with dyspepsia or GERD.     

24-H Pharyngeal pH Monitoring in Healthy Volunteers: A Normative Study

Background: Gastropharyngeal reflux has been associated with disorders of the upper and lower airways. It may be shown by pharyngeal pH-metry, but reports on normality in healthy volunteers are scarce. No definite consensus has been reached considering the upper limit of normality (ULN). The aim of the present study was therefore to quantify the occurrence of pharyngeal acid exposure (pH &lt; 4) in healthy volunteers and, further, to examine its relation to acid exposure of the oesophagus and oesophageal motility and its occurrence in relation to age, sex, and body position. Methods: Forty healthy volunteers underwent ambulatory 24-h pH-metry, using antimony electrodes positioned 2 cm above the upper oesophageal sphincter and 5 cm above the lower oesophageal sphincter on the basis of manometry. Technical artefacts were excluded before calculation of all results. Results: Gastropharyngeal reflux occurred in most healthy volunteers without any significant relation to age, sex, or body weight. Pharyngeal acid reflux occurred mainly in the upright position. The ULN for pharyngeal acid exposure time was assessed to 0.9% (0.2% after exclusion of mealtimes). The ULN for the number of acid events in the pharynx was 18 (6.1). The corresponding ULNs for the oesophagus were 7% and 84. Conclusion: Gastropharyngeal reflux may be effectively monitored by ambulatory pH-metry. The present study provides reference limits, a prerequisite for evaluating the pathophysiologic importance of the phenomenon.