Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 444–451

Impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity distinguishes hypersensitive esophagus from functional heartburn

  • Marzio Frazzoni
  • Nicola de Bortoli
  • Leonardo Frazzoni
  • Manuele Furnari
  • Irene Martinucci
  • Salvatore Tolone
  • Andrea Farioli
  • Santino Marchi
  • Lorenzo Fuccio
  • Vincenzo Savarino
  • Edoardo Savarino
Original Article—Alimentary Tract

Abstract

Background

Hypersensitive esophagus (HE) is defined by endoscopy-negative heartburn with a normal acid exposure time but positive symptom association probability (SAP) and/or symptom index (SI) on impedance–pH monitoring, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) responsiveness. Functional heartburn (FH) is distinguished by negative SAP/SI and PPI refractoriness. The clinical value of SAP and SI has been questioned. We aimed to investigate whether impairment of chemical clearance and of mucosal integrity, expressed by the postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and the mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), characterize HE independently of SAP and SI.

Methods

Impedance–pH tracings from PPI-responsive endoscopy-negative patients, 125 with nonerosive reflux disease and 108 with HE, distinguished by an abnormal and a normal acid exposure time, and from 70 patients with FH were retrospectively selected and blindly reviewed.

Results

The mean PSPW index and MNBI were significantly lower in nonerosive reflux disease (30 %, 1378 Ω) than in HE (51 %; 2274 Ω) and in both of them as compared with FH (76 %; 3445 Ω) (P = 0.0001). Both the PSPW index (adjusted odds ratio 0.863, P = 0.001) and the MNBI (adjusted odds ratio 0.998, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of HE; with their combined assessment, the area under the curve on receiver operating characteristic analysis was 0.957. SAP and/or SI was positive in 67 of the 108 HE patients (62 %), whereas the PSPW index and/or MNBI was abnormal in 99 of the 108 HE patients (92 %; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

HE is characterized by impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity, which explains the increased reflux perception. When SAP and SI afford uncertain results, the PSPW index and MNBI should be analyzed.

Keywords

Functional heartburn Hypersensitive esophagus GERD pH Impedance monitoring 

References

  1. 1.
    Galmiche JP, Clouse RE, Balint A, et al. Functional esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1459–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katz P, Gerson L, Vela M. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:308–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zerbib F, Sifrim D, Tutuian R, et al. Modern medical and surgical management of difficult-to-treat GORD. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2013;1:21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savarino E, Zentilin P, Savarino V. NERD: an umbrella term including heterogeneous subpopulations. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;10:371–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slaughter JC, Goutte M, Rymer JA, et al. Caution about overinterpretation of symptom indexes in reflux monitoring for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:868–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaezi MF. Ambulatory monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease: where do we stand? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:892–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conchillo J, Smout A. Review article: intra-oesophageal impedance monitoring for the assessment of bolus transit and gastro-oesophageal reflux. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;29:3–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woodley FW, Fernandez F, Mousa H. Diurnal variation in the chemical clearance of acid gastroesophageal reflux in infants. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frazzoni M, Manta R, Mirante VG, et al. Esophageal chemical clearance is impaired in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease—a 24 h impedance-pH monitoring assessment. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25:399–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kessing BF, Bredenoord AJ, Weijenborg PW, et al. Esophageal acid exposure decreases intraluminal baseline impedance. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:2093–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farrè R, Blondeau K, Clement D, et al. Evaluation of oesophageal mucosa integrity by the intraluminal impedance technique. Gut. 2011;60:885–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woodland P, Al-Zinaty M, Yazaki E, et al. In vivo evaluation of acid-induced changes in oesophageal mucosa integrity and sensitivity in non-erosive reflux disease. Gut. 2013;62:1256–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farrè R. Pathophysiology of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a role for mucosa integrity? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25:783–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martinucci I, De Bortoli N, Savarino E, et al. Esophageal baseline impedance levels in patients with pathophysiological characteristics of functional heartburn. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26:546–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Bortoli N, Martinucci I, Savarino E, et al. Association between baseline impedance values and response proton pump inhibitors in patients with heartburn. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1082–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frazzoni M, Savarino E, De Bortoli N, et al. Analyses of the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance parameters increase the diagnostic yield of patients with reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:40–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savarino E, Pohl D, Zentilin P, et al. Functional heartburn has more in common with functional dyspepsia than with non-erosive reflux disease. Gut. 2009;58:1185–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frazzoni M, Conigliaro R, Manta R, et al. Reflux parameters as modified by EsophyX or laparoscopic fundoplication in refractory GERD. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:67–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savarino E, Tutuian R, Zentilin P, et al. Characteristics of reflux episodes and symptom association in patients with erosive esophagitis and nonerosive reflux disease: study using combined impedance-pH off therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1053–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Penagini R, Sweis R, Mauro A, et al. Inconsistency in the diagnosis of functional heartburn: usefulness of prolonged wireless pH monitoring in patients with proton pump inhibitor refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;21:265–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zerbib F, Roman S, Alpert A, et al. Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring and symptom analysis in GERD: a study in patients off and on therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1956–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Savarino E, Zentilin P, Mastracci L, et al. Microscopic esophagitis distinguishes patients with non-erosive reflux disease from those with functional heartburn. J Gastroenterol. 2013;48:473–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bredenoord AJ, Smout AJPM. Association between reflux and symptoms during ambulatory reflux monitoring: pros and cons of existing methods. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25:633–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheng F-K, Albert D, Maydonovitch C, et al. Categorization of patients with reflux symptoms referred for pH and impedance testing while off therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:867–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali P. Parameters on esophageal pH-impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:884–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patel A, Sayuk G, Kushnir V, et al. GERD phenotypes from pH-impedance monitoring predict symptomatic outcomes on prospective evaluation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28:513–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pritchett JM, Aslam M, Slaughter JC, et al. Efficacy of esophageal impedance/pH monitoring in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease, on and off therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:743–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Frazzoni M, Conigliaro R, Melotti G. Reflux parameters as modified by laparoscopic fundoplication in 40 patients with heartburn/regurgitation persisting despite PPI therapy. A study using impedance-pH monitoring. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:1099–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frazzoni M, Conigliaro R, Mirante VG, et al. The added value of quantitative analysis of on-therapy impedance-pH parameters in distinguishing refractory non-erosive reflux disease from functional heartburn. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:141–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frazzoni M, Piccoli M, Conigliaro R, et al. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease as diagnosed by impedance-pH monitoring can be cured by laparoscopic fundoplication. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:2940–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Bortoli N, Martinucci I, Savarino E, et al. Manually calculated oesophageal bolus clearance time increases in parallel with reflux severity at impedance-pH monitoring. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47:1027–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frazzoni M, Conigliaro R, Melotti G. Weakly acidic refluxes have a major role in the pathogenesis of proton pump inhibitor-resistant reflux oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;33:601–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ribolsi M, Savarino E, De Bortoli N, et al. Reflux pattern and role of impedance-pH variables in predicting PPI response in patients with suspected GERD-related chronic cough. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:966–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gyawali CP. Redeeming clinical value of esophageal pH impedance monitoring. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:47–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Numans M, Lau J, de Wit N, et al. Short-term treatment with proton-pump inhibitors as a test for gastroesophageal reflux disease—a meta-analysis of diagnostic test characteristics. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:518–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frazzoni M, Bertani H, Manta R, et al. Impairment of chemical clearance is relevant to the pathogenesis of refractory reflux oesophagitis. Dig Liver Dis. 2014;46:596–612.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frazzoni M, Bertani H, Conigliaro R, et al. Neoplastic progression in short-segment Barrett’s oesophagus is associated with impairment of chemical clearance, but not inadequate acid suppression by proton pump inhibitor therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:835–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zerbib F, Roman S, Des Varannes SB, et al. Normal values of pharyngeal and esophageal 24 h pH impedance in individuals on and off therapy and interobserver reproducibility. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:366–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Broeders JA, Draaisma WA, Bredenoord AJ, et al. Oesophageal acid hypersensitivity is not a contraindication to Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1023–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Desjardin M, Luc G, Collet D, et al. 24 h pH-impedance monitoring on therapy to select patients with refractory reflux symptoms for antireflux surgery. A single center retrospective study. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28:146–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roman S, Bruley Des Varannes S, Pouderoux P, et al. Ambulatory 24 h oesophageal impedance–pH recordings: reliability of automatic analysis for gastro-oesophageal reflux assessment. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2006;18:978–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Gastroenterology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marzio Frazzoni
    • 1
  • Nicola de Bortoli
    • 2
  • Leonardo Frazzoni
    • 3
  • Manuele Furnari
    • 4
  • Irene Martinucci
    • 2
  • Salvatore Tolone
    • 5
  • Andrea Farioli
    • 3
  • Santino Marchi
    • 2
  • Lorenzo Fuccio
    • 3
  • Vincenzo Savarino
    • 4
  • Edoardo Savarino
    • 6
  1. 1.Digestive Pathophysiology UnitBaggiovara HospitalModenaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Medical and Surgical SciencesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly
  5. 5.General and Bariatric Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery2nd University of NapoliNaplesItaly
  6. 6.Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and GastroenterologyUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations