Utilization of wireless pH monitoring technologies: a summary of the proceedings from the Esophageal Diagnostic Working Group

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be difficult to diagnose – symptoms alone are often not enough, and thus, objective testing is often required. GERD is a manifestation of pathologic levels of reflux into the esophagus of acidic, nonacidic, and/or bilious gastric content. However, in our current evidence‐based knowledge approach, we only have reasonable outcome data in regards to acid reflux, as this particular type of refluxate predictably causes symptoms and mucosal damage, which improves with medical or surgical therapy. While there are data suggesting that nonacid reflux may be responsible for ongoing symptoms despite acid suppression in some patients, outcome data about this issue are limited. Therefore, this working group believes that it is essential to confirm the presence of acid reflux in patients with ‘refractory’ GERD symptoms or extraesophageal symptoms thought to be caused by gastroesophageal reflux before an escalation of antireflux therapy is considered. If patients do not have pathologic acid reflux off antisecretory therapy, they are unlikely to have clinically significant nonacid or bile reflux. Patients who do not have pathologic acid gastroesophageal reflux parameters on ambulatory pH monitoring then: (i) could attempt to discontinue antisecretory medications like proton pump inhibitors and H2‐receptor antagonists (which are expensive and which carry risks – i.e. C. diff, etc.); (ii) may undergo further evaluation for other causes of their esophageal symptoms (e.g. functional heartburn or chest pain, eosinophilic esophagitis, gastroparesis, achalasia, other esophageal motor disorders); and (iii) can be referred to an ear, nose, and throat/pulmonary/allergy physician for assessment of non‐GERD causes of their extraesophageal symptoms.     

Esophageal dysmotility in patients undergoing photodynamic therapy

OBJECTIVE: To study the esophageal motility of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or Barrett esophagus with high-grade dysplasia before and after photodynamic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study conducted between January 1998 and October 1999, esophageal motility testing of the lower esophageal sphincter and esophageal body was performed with a water-perfused catheter, 2 days before and at least 3 weeks after patients underwent photodynamic therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma or Barrett esophagus. Results were classified as normal motility, ineffective esophageal motility, or aperistalsis. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were studied, 13 with carcinoma and 10 with Barrett esophagus. Overall, 11 patients (48%) had normal motility, 6 (26%) had ineffective esophageal motility, and 6 (26%) had aperistalsis. Five patients with aperistalsis had carcinoma. Follow-up tracings after photodynamic therapy found that 6 patients (26%) had normal motility, 7 (30%) had ineffective esophageal motility, and 10 (43%) had aperistalsis. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal dysmotility is common in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or Barrett esophagus. Photodynamic therapy may worsen esophageal motility in some patients. Dysphagia after photodynamic therapy therefore may be related to underlying esophageal dysmotility and may not always be caused by stricture or underlying carcinoma.     

Comparison of the efficacy of pantoprazole vs. nizatidine in the treatment of erosive oesophagitis: a randomized,active-controlled,double-blind study

BACKGROUND: Pantoprazole is a proton pump inhibitor approved for the treatment of erosive oesophagitis and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole vs. nizatidine for the treatment of symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and endoscopically documented erosive oesophagitis (grade > or = 2). METHODS: A multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled study (221 patients) was performed to compare 20 and 40 mg pantoprazole daily with nizatidine 150 mg b.d. (maximum, 8 weeks). The primary end-point was endoscopic healing of erosive oesophagitis (grade 1 or 0). The secondary end-point was symptomatic improvement. RESULTS: Healing averaged 61%, 64% and 22% for pantoprazole 20 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg and nizatidine 150 mg, respectively, at 4 weeks, and 79%, 83% and 41% at 8 weeks (P < 0.05, differences between groups at both points). Starting on day 1 of symptom assessment, significantly fewer pantoprazole-treated patients reported night-time heartburn and regurgitation compared with nizatidine-treated patients. Symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were completely eliminated in 68% and 65% of patients in the pantoprazole 20-mg and 40-mg groups and in 28% of patients in the nizatidine group at study completion. The difference between each pantoprazole group and the nizatidine group was significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole, at single daily doses of 20 mg and 40 mg for up to 8 weeks, provides more rapid relief of symptoms and superior healing of erosive oesophagitis than nizatidine 150 mg b.d., and is well tolerated.     

Gastroesophageal reflux disease: extraesophageal manifestations and therapy

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can present with both typical symptoms such as heartburn and regurgitation as well as atypical symptoms. These symptoms may include chest pain, asthma, chronic cough, hoarseness, otitis media, atypical loss of dental enamel, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, recurrent pneumonia, chronic bronchitis and even sudden infant death. The diagnosis of GERD in these patients can often present a challenge and usually requires a combination of selected testing and therapeutic trials. Acid suppression by using proton pump inhibitors remains the treatment of choice in GERD, but some patients will also respond well to antireflux surgery. This article addresses the presentations, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic opportunities in GERD patients with atypical presentations.     

Accurate placement of the esophageal pH electrode for 24-hour pH monitoring using a combined pH/manometry probe

OBJECTIVE: Accurate placement of a pH electrode requires manometric localization of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). Combined manometry/pH devices using water-perfused tubes attached to pH catheters and the use of an electronic "LES locator" have been reported. We investigated whether accurate placement of pH probes can be achieved using such a probe, and whether this may reduce the need for the performance of the usual stepwise pull-back manometry. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients (15 men, 15 women; median age, 56 yr; interquartile range, 42-68 yr) referred for manometry and pH testing were included in the study. The localization of the LES was determined with standard esophageal manometry. After that, a second 3-mm pH electrode with an internal perfusion port was passed into the stomach. Using this catheter, a single stepwise pull-through manometry was performed and the LES position was noted. LES location, mean pressure, and length obtained with standard manometry were compared to data from the combined pH/manometry catheter. Additionally the time necessary to perform each of the procedures was noted and the patient's discomfort caused by the catheter was evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: The LES location with the pH/manometry probe was proximal to that with standard manometry in 19 patients (63%), the same in nine patients (30%), and distal in two patients (7%). The differences were <2 cm in 29 of 30 (97%) patients. The LES location with the pH/manometry probe required a median of 6.5 min (interquartile range: 3.5-8.5 min) versus a median of 21.5 min (interquartile range: 14.5-26.5 min) for standard manometry (p < 0.0001). In addition, LES evaluation using the combined pH/manometry probe provided accurate data on the resting pressure, as well as overall and intraabdominal length of the LES. All patients tolerated the combination probe better than the standard manometry probe (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of the esophageal electrode for 24-h esophageal pH monitoring using a combined pH/manometry probe is accurate. The technique is simple, time-saving, and convenient for the patients. Because it is possible to accurately evaluate the LES using this technique, it may even replace conventional manometry before pH probe placement.     

Failure of esophageal peristalsis in older patients: association with esophageal acid exposure

OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in all ages, but its prevalence appears to increase with age. Older patients often need aggressive medical therapy and are frequently being considered for antireflux surgery. We sought to evaluate the physiological defect (lower esophageal sphincter [LES] pressures, esophageal motility, and acid exposure) in a group of GERD patients >or= 65 yr old in comparison with a younger population (or=65 yr old and the control group of those 10%). Motility parameters (LES and esophageal body) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Of 349 patients who underwent manometry and pH testing during the study period, 133 were >or=65 yr old, and 48 were 10% (12.6 mm Hg in the or=65-yr-old patients, p < 0.05). The percentage of swallows that induced normal peristalsis was lowest in the >or=65-yr-old patients compared with the 10% acid exposure (62.5% vs 95%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Reflux in older patients is complicated by disordered esophageal motility. This impaired motility may decrease acid clearance, result in more difficult to control disease, and may render these patients susceptible to GERD complications.     

Oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration in patients with noncardiac chest pain

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 1194–1201

Summary

Background Eosinophilic oesophagitis clinically presents with recurrent episodes of dysphagia and food impaction. Recently, we observed patients with noncardiac chest pain and eosinophilic oesophagitis. Aims To estimate the prevalence of abnormal eosinophilic infiltration in noncardiac chest pain patients and examine diagnostic utility of demographic, clinical and endoscopic variables to predict eosinophilic oesophagitis. Methods Retrospective study of 171 consecutive patients referred for EGD evaluation of noncardiac chest pain. Endoscopic signs consistent with eosinophilic oesophagitis were recorded. The histological findings were grouped as normal: 0–5 eosinophils/high power field (e/hpf), indeterminate: 6–20 e/hpf, and eosinophilic oesophagitis: ≥21 e/hpf. Abnormal eosinophilic infiltration was defined as ≥6 e/hpf. Results Abnormal eosinophilic infiltrate was noted in 24 patients (14%). Thirteen (8%) had indeterminate counts, while 11 (6%) had eosinophilic oesophagitis. Compared with normal, those with abnormal oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration were more likely to be male (71% vs. 34%, P = 0.001), have allergies (29% vs. 12%, P = 0.050), have current GER symptoms (42% vs. 18%, P = 0.013), rings (54% vs. 22%, P = 0.002), furrows (21% vs. 1%, P < 0.001) and abnormal eosinophilic oesophagitis findings on endoscopy (67% vs. 32%, P = 0.001). Of the 24 abnormal patients, 23 (96%) were either male or had rings, furrows, or white specs. Conversely, 68 of 69 patients (99%) who were female did not have rings, furrows, or white specs, and endoscopy was normal. Eight patients (33%) with abnormal eosinophilic infiltration had a normal endoscopy. Conclusions Eosinophilic oesophagitis should be considered in the evaluation of noncardiac chest pain. Our findings suggest that oesophageal biopsies should be obtained particularly in males with recurrent unexplained chest pain, whether endoscopy is normal or abnormal.