Prolonged Slow Expiration Technique and Gastroesophageal Reflux in Infants Under the Age of 1 Year

Background: The Prolonged Slow Expiration Technique (PSE) is an airway clearance technique (ACT) carried out in newborn children with bronchial obstruction and hypersecretion to clear away the mucus from the respiratory tract. Evidence about the effect of PSE on gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is currently lacking in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of PSE on GER in infants under the age of 1 year.Methods: Infants were observed using multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) over 24 h. During monitoring, the participants were treated with one 20 min intervention of PSE in supine position, 2 h after feeding. In this controlled trial with intra-subject design, the number of reflux episodes (REs) during PSE were compared to 20 min before and after PSE.Results: Fifty infants younger than 1 year were screened of whom 22 had a pathological GER. For the entire group, no significant difference was seen in the total number of REs between before, during, or after the PSE treatment (P = 0.76). No significant difference in total REs was found between the three measuring points (P = 0.59) in the group of infants with an abnormal MII-pH (n = 22).Conclusion: PSE does not cause a significant difference in REs in infants younger than 1 year.Registration number: NCT03341585.

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.

24-Hour Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance–pH in Proton Pump Inhibitor Nonresponders vs Responders in Patients With Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of reflux in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) nonresponders vs responders in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) by using 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance–pH (MII-pH) monitoring. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting A tertiary care otolaryngology clinic. Methods Patients with typical LPR symptoms showing >1 proximal reflux episode were considered to have LPR and investigated prospectively. Patients were prescribed high-dose PPI twice daily and followed up for at least 2 months. Patients with LPR showing a ≥50% decrease in the follow-up reflux symptom index score during treatment periods as compared with pretreatment were defined as responders; others were defined as nonresponders. Various parameters in 24-hour MII-pH monitoring between nonresponders and responders with LPR were compared with Student’s t test and receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Eighty patients were diagnosed with LPR and categorized as nonresponders (n = 19) and responders (n = 61). Proximal all reflux time and proximal longest reflux time in various MII parameters were higher in responders than in nonresponders ( P = .0040 and .0216, respectively). Proximal all reflux time >0.000517% was a better cutoff value to predict responders with LPR as compared with the proximal longest reflux time >0.61 minutes (sensitivity + specificity: 1.317 vs 1.291). Conclusion Proximal all reflux time in various 24-hour MII-pH monitoring parameters can be helpful to predict the response to PPI therapy in patients with LPR. These findings will help establish a personalized therapeutic scheme for patients with LPR.

Diagnostic Value of the PeptestTM in Detecting Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Background: The PeptestTM is a non-invasive diagnostic test for measuring the pepsin concentration in saliva, which is thought to correlate with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of the Peptest in detecting LPR based on 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring using several hypopharyngeal reflux episodes as criterion for LPR. Methods: Patients with suspected LPR were examined with the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), fasting Peptest, and MII-pH monitoring. We calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Peptest, RSI, and RFS based on the threshold of one and six hypopharyngeal reflux episodes. Results: Altogether, the data from 46 patients were analyzed. When one hypopharyngeal reflux episode was used as a diagnostic threshold for LPR, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: 35%, 33%, 100%, 100%, and 3%, for the Peptest; 39%, 40%, 0%, 95%, and 0%, for the RSI; and 57%, 58%, 0%, 96%, and 0%, for the RFS. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Peptest for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were 46%, 27%, 63%, 40.0%, and 48%, respectively. Conclusions: A positive Peptest is highly supportive of a pathological LPR diagnosis. However, a negative test could not exclude LPR.

Comparison Between Manual and Automated Analyses in Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance: pH Monitoring for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Objective To evaluate differences between manual and automated analyses of 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance–pH monitoring for diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Study Design Case series with planned data collection. Setting Academic center outpatient clinic. Methods The study group comprised 127 patients with symptoms suspicious of laryngopharyngeal reflux, who underwent 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance–pH monitoring. Automated and manual analyses were performed for each patient. The following parameters were compared between analyses: number of proximal reflux episodes, proximal exposure time, symptom index, and symptom association probability. Results The number of proximal reflux episodes detected by manual analysis was significantly lower than that detected by automated analysis, except in acid reflux cases. The false positive of automated analysis was 39.8%. In addition, the proximal exposure time for manual analysis was significantly lower than that for automated analysis, except in cases of acid reflux. Symptom index and symptom association probability values based on manual analysis were significantly lower than in automated analysis, except in heartburn cases. Conclusions Automated analysis demonstrated a tendency of excessive reflux measurement when compared with manual analysis. It is necessary to increase the accuracy of laryngopharyngeal reflux diagnosis through manual analysis.

Does Pepsin Saliva Concentration (Peptest™) Predict the Therapeutic Response of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients?

Objective: To study the profile and the therapeutic response of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) at the hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) according to the initial pepsin saliva concentration. Methods: From January 2018 to January 2020, patients with positive LPR diagnosis at the HEMII-pH were consecutively recruited from 3 European Hospitals. Saliva pepsin concentration (Peptest™) was measured during the HEMII-pH testing period and patients were classified into 2 groups: negative versus positive Peptest. The clinical outcomes, that is, gastrointestinal and HEMII-pH findings, reflux symptom score-12 (RSS-12), and 3-month therapeutic response, were compared between groups. Results: A total of 124 patients completed the study. Among them, 30 patients had negative Peptest. Pharyngeal reflux events occurred outside 1-hour post-meal time in 74.0%, after the meals in 20.5% and nighttime in 5.5%. The pepsin saliva level was not significantly associated with the reflux events preceding the sample collection. Patients with positive Peptest had better improvement of RSS-12 digestive and respiratory subscores and oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal findings compared with patients with negative Peptest. Conclusion: Patients with high saliva pepsin concentration had no stronger gastrointestinal, HEMII-pH, or clinical outcomes compared with those with low or undetectable saliva pepsin concentration.