Evidence Hub

Esophageal Clearance in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: Correlation of Reflux Scintigraphy and 24-hour Impedance/pH in a Cohort of Refractory Symptomatic Patients

L. Burton, G. Falk, K. Baumgart, J. Beattie, S. Simpson, H. Van der Wall

Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy, 2020

34 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Objectives: The role of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the aetiology of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is poorly understood and remains a controversial issue. The 24-hour impedance monitoring has shown promise in the evaluation of LPR but is problematic in pharyngeal recording. We have shown the utility of scintigraphic studies in the detection of LPR and lung aspiration of refluxate. Correlative studies were obtained in patients with a strong history of LPR and severe GERD. Methods: A highly selected sequential cohort of patients with a high pre-test probability of LPR/severe GERD who had failed maximal medical therapy were evaluated with 24-hour impedance/pH, manometry and scintigraphic reflux studies. Results: The study group comprised 34 patients (15 M, 19 F) with a mean age of 56 years (range: 28-80 years). The majority had LPR symptoms (mainly cough) in 31 and severe GERD in 3. Impedance bolus clearance and pH studies were abnormal in all patients in the upright and supine position. A high rate of non-acid GERD was detected by impedance monitoring. LOS tone and ineffective oesophageal clearance were found in the majority of patients. Scintigraphic studies showed strong correlations with impedance, pH and manometric abnormalities, with 10 patients showing pulmonary aspiration. Conclusion: Scintigraphic studies appear to be a good screening test for LPR and pulmonary aspiration as there is direct visualisation of tracer at these sites. Impedance studies…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 34 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free