Exclusion of pH artifacts is essential for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Published yields of pH monitoring for suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) vary greatly. Hypopharyngeal pH artifacts may be responsible for these inconsistencies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of potential artifacts on pH monitoring of the hypopharynx and esophagus. METHODS: Patients with suspected LPR were prospectively studied. Single-catheter, triple-sensor pH monitoring was performed off antireflux therapy. Subjects recorded meal times and marked liquid swallows outside of meals on the data recorder. Results were analyzed by excluding six potential pH artifacts individually and all together. Positive pH test was defined as three or more reflux episodes in hypopharynx, total percent of time pH less than 4 was 1.0% or greater in the proximal esophagus, and total percent of time pH less than 4 was 4.2% or greater in the distal esophagus. Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-square tests were used. RESULTS: Thirty-eight subjects (24 females; median age, 47 yr) completed the study. A total of 2,225 hypopharyngeal pH drops less than 4 were identified; 48% were short pH drops at less than 5 seconds, 17% within meal periods, 16% liquid swallows outside of meals, 16% isolated proximal pH drops, 12% pH out of range, and 5% pH drift. Eighty percent of the hypopharyngeal pH drops were at least one of the potential pH artifacts. The yield of the hypopharyngeal sensor was reduced by 45% (from 92% to 47%) after all potential pH artifacts were excluded. Yields of proximal and distal esophageal pH sensors were reduced by 19% and 8%, respectively, significantly less than the hypopharyngeal sensor (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients should record all liquid swallows outside of meals. It is essential to exclude all potential artifacts for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring in patients with suspected LPR.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with single-dose pantoprazole for laryngopharyngeal reflux.

OBJECTIVES: Results of randomized treatment trials for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) are mixed. The cause and effect between gastroesophageal reflux and laryngeal symptoms remain elusive. AIMS: To determine the efficacy of single-dose pantoprazole in newly diagnosed LPR and to correlate hypopharyngeal reflux with symptom improvement. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed with a 2-wk run-in, 12-wk treatment period (pantoprazole 40 mg q.a.m. or placebo), and 4-wk follow-up. Study criteria were laryngeal complaints >3 days/wk and a positive triple-sensor pH test. Laryngeal exam was graded using a reflux finding score before and after treatment. Repeat pH test was performed on study drug at week 12. Weekly diaries were kept on symptom severity and global assessment. Total laryngeal symptom score was defined as the sum of six laryngeal symptoms. Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon, and Pearson tests were used. RESULTS: Thirty-nine subjects (13 M/26 F, median age 39 yr) were randomized; 35 completed the study. During the treatment period, total laryngeal symptom scores significantly improved compared with pretreatment scores in both study groups, but there were no significant differences between them. Forty percent of pantoprazole group reported adequate relief at week 12, compared with 42% of placebo group (p= 0.89). No significant improvement in hypopharyngeal reflux was found in either study group. There were no significant correlations between laryngeal reflux finding scores and hypopharyngeal reflux episodes with symptom improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Response was similar between single-dose pantoprazole and placebo in newly diagnosed LPR. Our results suggested that laryngeal exam was not useful in following treatment response. Hypopharyngeal reflux may represent acid reflux or artifacts, but is not likely the underlying cause.

Design and implementation of an ambulatory pH monitoring protocol in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Adding a hypopharyngeal sensor to esophageal pH monitoring has been advocated for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, selecting the proper pH catheter is problematic because esophageal lengths are variable among individuals. OBJECTIVE: To design and implement a new pH monitoring protocol for LPR. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Design parameters were defined prospectively: single-probe, triple-sensor pH catheter with sensors located in the hypopharynx (1-3 cm above upper esophageal sphincter) and in proximal and distal esophagus (20 cm and 5 cm above lower esophageal sphincter, respectively). Esophageal lengths were determined in a study population undergoing esophageal manometry. Optimal pH sensor spacings were determined using the least number of catheters to satisfy the design parameters. The protocol was implemented in consecutive subjects with suspected LPR. RESULTS: Distribution of esophageal lengths was determined in 1,043 subjects. In 92% of the study population, three pH catheters (3-15, 6-15, and 9-15 sensor-spacings) would satisfy the design criteria. Forty-one subjects with suspected LPR underwent the pH protocol. An abnormal pH test was found in 40 subjects (98%) with triple-sensor combination compared with 29 subjects (71%) if only dual esophageal sensors were used. CONCLUSIONS: Single-probe pH monitoring of the hypopharynx and esophagus was feasible. Adding a hypopharyngeal pH sensor increased the detection of abnormal acid reflux more often than traditional dual-sensor esophageal pH monitoring.