Treatment of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease: the new kids to block

Refractory gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD), defined as persistent symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, is an increasingly prevalent condition and is becoming a major challenge for the clinician. Since non‐acidic reflux may be associated with symptoms persisting during PPI treatment, the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), the most important barrier protecting against reflux, has become an important target for the treatment of (refractory) GERD. Preclinical research has identified several receptors that are involved in the control of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs), the predominant mechanism of both acid and non‐acidic reflux events, and several drugs have now been tested in humans. The GABA_B agonist baclofen has demonstrated to effectively reduce the rate of TLESRs and the amount of reflux in both GERD patients and healthy volunteers. Nevertheless, the occurrence of central side effects limits its clinical use for the treatment of GERD. Several analogues are being developed to overcome this limitation and have shown promising results. Additionally, metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) receptor antagonists have shown to reduce both acid and non‐acidic reflux in GERD patients and several molecules are currently being evaluated. Although CB₁ antagonists have been shown to reduce TLESRs, they are also associated with central side effects, limiting their clinical applicability. Despite the identification of several potentially interesting drugs, the main challenge for the future remains the reduction of central side effects. Moreover, future studies will need to demonstrate the efficacy of these treatments in patients with refractory GERD.     

Cardiovascular compression of the esophagus and spread of gastro‐esophageal reflux

Background Factors that determine the spread of gastro‐esophageal reflux (GER) along the length of the esophagus are not known. We investigated if cardiovascular (CV) compressions on the esophagus may determine the spread of refluxate into the proximal esophagus. Methods High‐resolution manometry (HRM) and multi‐channel intra‐luminal impedance recording (MIIR) were performed simultaneously in 10 normal subjects in the recumbent and upright positions. Pulsatile pressure increases on the esophagus (marker of CV compression) were identified on the HRM. Spread of refluxate into the esophagus was determined by the MIIR. Key Results Cardiovascular compression zones were observed in the esophagus in 9 out of 10 subjects in recumbent position. Forty percent of GER episodes were limited to the distal esophagus in the recumbent position and CV compression pressure was greater than distal esophageal pressure at the time of GER in all such cases. On the other hand, distal esophageal pressure was greater than CV compression pressure when the refluxate extended into the proximal esophagus. In the upright position, CV compression was less frequent than recumbent position and only 12% of GER episodes were limited to the distal esophagus. Conclusions & Inferences Cardiovascular compression of the esophagus is frequently observed in normal healthy subject and restricts the spread of refluxate into the proximal esophagus.     

Diagnosis of supra‐esophageal gastric reflux: correlation of oropharyngeal pH with esophageal impedance monitoring for gastro‐esophageal reflux

Background Oropharyngeal (OP) pH monitoring has been developed as a new way to diagnose supra‐esophageal gastric reflux (SEGR), but has not been well validated. Our aim was to determine the correlation between OP pH and gastro‐esophageal reflux (GER) events detected by multichannel intraluminal impedance‐pH (MII‐pH). Methods Fifteen patients (11 males, median age 10.8 years) with suspected GER were prospectively evaluated with ambulatory 24‐h OP pH monitoring (positioned at the level of the uvula) and concomitant esophageal MII‐pH monitoring. Potential OP events were identified by the conventional pH threshold of <4 and by the following alternative criteria: (i) relative pH drop >10% from 15‐min baseline and (ii) absolute pH drop below thresholds of <5.5, 5.0, and 4.5. The 2‐min window preceding each OP event was analyzed for correlation with an episode of GER detected by MII‐pH. Key Results A total of 926 GER events were detected by MII‐pH. Application of alternative pH criteria increased the identification of potential OP pH events; however, a higher proportion of OP events had no temporal correlation with GER (45–81%), compared with the conventional definition of pH < 4 (40%). A total of 306 full‐column acid reflux episodes were detected by MII‐pH, of which 10 (3.3%) were also identified by OP pH monitoring. Conclusions & Inferences Use of extended pH criteria increased the detection of potential SEGR events, but the majority of decreases in OP pH were not temporally correlated with GER. Oropharyngeal pH monitoring without concurrent esophageal measurements may overestimate the presence of SEGR in children.     

Short-term electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter increases sphincter pressure in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background Electrical stimulation (ES) of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) increases resting LES pressure (LESP) in animal models. Our aims were to evaluate the safety of such stimulation in humans, and test the hypothesis that ES increases resting LESP in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods A total of 10 subjects (nine female patients, mean age 52.6 years), with symptoms of GERD responsive to PPIs, low resting LES pressure, and abnormal 24‐h intraesophageal pH test were enrolled. Those with hiatal hernia >2 cm and/or esophagitis >Los Angeles Grade B were excluded. Bipolar stitch electrodes were placed longitudinally in the LES during an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, secured by a clip and exteriorized through the abdominal wall. Following recovery, an external pulse generator delivered two types of stimulation for periods of 30 min: (i) low energy stimulation; pulse width of 200 μs, frequency of 20 Hz and current of 5–15 mA (current was increased up to 15 mA if LESP was less than 15 mmHg), and (ii) high energy stimulation; pulse width of 375 ms, frequency of 6 cpm, and current 5 mA. Resting LESP, amplitude of esophageal contractions and residual LESP in response to swallows were assessed before and after stimulation. Symptoms of chest pain, abdominal pain, and dysphagia were recorded before, during, and after stimulation and 7‐days after stimulation. Continuous cardiac monitoring was performed during and after stimulation. Key Results All patients were successfully implanted nine subjects received high frequency, low energy, and four subjects received low frequency, high energy stimulation. Both types of stimulation significantly increased resting LESP: from 8.6 mmHg (95% CI 4.1–13.1) to 16.6 mmHg (95% CI 10.8–19.2), P < 0.001 with low energy stimulation and from 9.2 mmHg (95% CI 2.0–16.3) to 16.5 mmHg (95% CI 2.7–30.1), P = 0.03 with high energy stimulation. Neither type of stimulation affected the amplitude of esophageal peristalsis or residual LESP. No subject complained of dysphagia. One subject had retrosternal discomfort with stimulation at15 mA that was not experienced with stimulation at 13 mA. There were no adverse events or any cardiac rhythm abnormalities with either type of stimulation. Conclusions & Inferences Short‐term stimulation of the LES in patients with GERD significantly increases resting LESP without affecting esophageal peristalsis or LES relaxation. Electrical stimulation of the LES may offer a novel therapy for patients with GERD.     

Failure to respond to physiologic challenge characterizes esophageal motility in erosive gastro‐esophageal reflux disease

Background Non‐specific esophageal dysmotility with impaired clearance is often present in patients with gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD), especially those with erosive disease; however the physio‐mechanic basis of esophageal dysfunction is not well defined. Methods Retrospective assessment of patients with erosive reflux disease (ERD; n = 20) and endoscopy negative reflux disease (ENRD; n = 20) with pathologic acid exposure on pH studies (>4.2% time/24 h) and also healthy controls (n = 20) studied by high resolution manometry. Esophageal motility in response to liquid and solid bolus swallows and multiple water swallows (MWS) was analyzed. Peristaltic dysfunction was defined as failed peristalsis, spasm, weak or poorly coordinated esophageal contraction (>3 cm break in 30 mmHg isocontour). Key Results Peristaltic dysfunction was present in 33% of water swallows in controls, 56% ENRD and 76% ERD respectively (P < 0.023 vs controls, P = 0.185 vs ENRD). The proportion of effective peristaltic contractions improved with solid compared to liquid bolus in controls (18%vs 33%, P = 0.082) and ENRD (22%vs 54%, P = 0.046) but not ERD (62%vs 76%, P = 0.438). Similarly, MWS was followed by effective peristalsis in 83% of controls and 70% ENRD but only 30% ERD patients (P < 0.017 vs controls and P < 0.031 vs ENRD). The association between acid exposure and dysmotility was closer for solid than liquid swallows (r = 0.52 vs 0.27). Conclusions & Inferences Peristaltic dysfunction is common in GERD. ERD patients are characterized by a failure to respond to the physiologic challenge of solid bolus and MWS that is likely also to impair clearance following reflux events and increase exposure to gastric refluxate.     

High‐resolution esophageal pressure topography is superior to conventional sleeve manometry for the detection of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations associated with a reflux event

Background Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) are the main mechanism underlying gastro‐esophageal reflux and are detected during manometric studies using well defined criteria. Recently, high‐resolution esophageal pressure topography (HREPT) has been introduced and is now considered as the new standard to study esophageal and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function. In this study we performed a head‐to‐head comparison between HREPT and conventional sleeve manometry for the detection of TLESRs. Methods A setup with two synchronized MMS‐solar systems was used. A solid state HREPT catheter, a water‐perfused sleeve catheter, and a multi intraluminal impedance pH (MII‐pH) catheter were introduced in 10 healthy volunteers (M6F4, age 19–56). Subjects were studied 0.5 h before and 3 h after ingestion of a standardized meal. Tracings were blinded and analyzed by the three authors according to the TLESR criteria. Key Results In the HREPT mode 156 TLESRs were scored, vs 143 during sleeve manometry (P = 0.10). Hundred and twenty‐three TLESRs were scored by both techniques. Of all TLESRs (177), 138 were associated with reflux (78%). High‐resolution esophageal pressure topography detected significantly more TLESRs associated with a reflux event (132 vs 119, P = 0.015) resulting in a sensitivity for detection of TLESRs with reflux of 96% compared to 86% respectively. Analysis of the discordant TLESRs associated with reflux showed that TLESRs were missed by sleeve manometry due to low basal LES pressure (N = 5), unstable pharyngeal signal (N = 4), and residual sleeve pressure >2 mmHg (N = 10). Conclusions & Inferences The HREPT is superior to sleeve manometry for the detection of TLESRs associated with reflux. However, rigid HREPT criteria are awaited.     

High‐resolution manometric characteristics help differentiate types of distal esophageal obstruction in patients with peristalsis

Background High‐resolution manometry (HRM) can identify obstructive motor features at the esophagogastric junction and abnormalities in esophageal bolus transit. We sought to determine if HRM patterns can differentiate functional from organic mechanical lower esophageal sphincter (LES) obstruction. Methods Segmental characteristics of peristalsis were examined using HRM in symptomatic subjects with elevated postdeglutitive residual pressure gradients across the LES (≥5 mmHg). Sixteen consecutive patients with non‐achalasic mechanical fixed obstruction were compared with 13 patients with elevated pressure gradients yet no mechanical obstruction and 14 asymptomatic controls. Pressure volumes were determined in mmHg cm s for peristaltic segments defined on HRM Clouse plots using an on‐screen pressure volume measurement tool. Key Results Residual pressure gradients were similarly elevated in both patient groups. A visually conspicuous and distinctive shift in the proportionate pressure strengths of the second and third peristaltic segments was apparent across groups. Whereas the ratios of peak pressures and pressure volumes between second and third segments approached 1 in controls (0.92, 0.98), pressures shifted to the second segment in mechanical obstruction (peak pressure ratio: 1.2 ± 0.4; pressure volume ratio: 1.8 ± 0.9) and to the third segment in functional obstruction (peak ratio: 0.7 ± 0.2; volume ratio: 0.5 ± 0.2; P < 0.02 for any comparison of either group with controls). A threshold volume ratio of 1.0 correctly segregated 93% of obstruction (P < 0.0001); visual pattern inspection was equally effective. Conclusions & Inferences When elevated residual pressure gradients are present in non‐achalasic patients, topographic characteristics of peristalsis can differentiate fixed mechanical obstruction from functional obstruction.     

Automated impedance‐manometry analysis detects esophageal motor dysfunction in patients who have non‐obstructive dysphagia with normal manometry

Background Automated integrated analysis of impedance and pressure signals has been reported to identify patients at risk of developing dysphagia post fundoplication. This study aimed to investigate this analysis in the evaluation of patients with non‐obstructive dysphagia (NOD) and normal manometry (NOD/NM). Methods Combined impedance‐manometry was performed in 42 patients (27F : 15M; 56.2 ± 5.1 years) and compared with that of 24 healthy subjects (8F : 16M; 48.2 ± 2.9 years). Both liquid and viscous boluses were tested. MATLAB‐based algorithms defined the median intrabolus pressure (IBP), IBP slope, peak pressure (PP), and timing of bolus flow relative to peak pressure (TNadImp‐PP). An index of pressure and flow (PFI) in the distal esophagus was derived from these variables. Key Results Diagnoses based on conventional manometric assessment: diffuse spasm (n = 5), non‐specific motor disorders (n = 19), and normal (n = 11). Patients with achalasia (n = 7) were excluded from automated impedance‐manometry (AIM) analysis. Only 2/11 (18%) patients with NOD/NM had evidence of flow abnormality on conventional impedance analysis. Several variables derived by integrated impedance‐pressure analysis were significantly different in patients as compared with healthy: higher PNadImp (P < 0.01), IBP (P < 0.01) and IBP slope (P < 0.05), and shorter TNadImp_PP (P = 0.01). The PFI of NOD/NM patients was significantly higher than that in healthy (liquid: 6.7 vs 1.2, P = 0.02; viscous: 27.1 vs 5.7, P < 0.001) and 9/11 NOD/NM patients had abnormal PFI. Overall, the addition of AIM analysis provided diagnoses and/or a plausible explanation in 95% (40/42) of patients who presented with NOD. Conclusions & Inferences Compared with conventional pressure‐impedance assessment, integrated analysis is more sensitive in detecting subtle abnormalities in esophageal function in patients with NOD and normal manometry.