胃食管反流病pH联合阻抗监测与单纯pH监测效果的对比研究

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (13)

全文: PDF (1393 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的探讨pH联合阻抗监测(multiple channel intraluminal pH-impedance reflux monitoring,MII-pH)相对于单纯pH监测在胃食管反流病(gastroesophageal reflux disease,GERD)评估中的优点,及胃食管反流病患者反流事件的特征。方法纳入2015-06至2017-06火箭军特色医学中心胃食管反流病中心首次行MII-pH监测的成年GERD患者,分析MII-pH监测的pH通道和阻抗通道的各主要反流指标的阳性率,以及各反流指标之间的统计学关系。结果共纳入GERD患者1780例,男889例,女891例,年龄(51.6±12.9)岁,有反酸、烧心、嗳气、胸痛、咳嗽、哮喘和咽部异物感等症状的患者分别为1026、1045、462、258、448、370、540例。pH通道的阳性率为26.3%,其中DeMeester积分的阳性率为25.4%,酸反流时间百分比的阳性率为25.4%。阻抗通道监测的阳性率为69.0%,其中反流总次数的阳性率为21.5%,液体酸反流和非酸反流次数相比有统计学差异(P＜0.001),液体酸反流和气体反流次数相比有统计学差异(P＜0.001);食团暴露时间百分比的阳性率为40.3%;症状相关性的阳性率为53.0%。MII-pH监测的总阳性率为71.3%。阻抗通道和pH通道的酸反流次数相比有统计学差异(P＜0.001)和相关性(r=0.904＞0.9,P＜0.001)。反流总量阳性率和症状相关性阳性率的McNemar卡方检验P＜0.001,Kappa=0.15;pH通道阳性率和症状相关性阳性率的McNemar卡方检验P＜0.001,Kappa=0.120。结论 MII-pH监测与单纯pH监测相比对酸反流事件的检出一致性非常高,并且更为敏感。MII-pH监测通过阻抗通道对非酸反流和气体反流的检测可显著提高GERD的检出率,并通过症状相关性分析可进一步提高GERD乃至反流高敏感(食管和气道)的检出率。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	胡志伟
	许辉
	汪忠镐
	吴继敏
	湛莹
	辛荣华
	梁艳
	张玉
	战秀岚
	毛建新

关键词 ：胃食管反流病, pH监测, 阻抗监测, 酸反流, 非酸反流, 症状相关性

Abstract：Objective To explore the advantages of multiple channel intraluminal pH-impedance reflux monitoring (MII-pH) over single pH monitoring for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and the characteristics of reflux episodes in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Methods The data of adult GERD patients under MII-pH monitoring for the first time in our center between June 2015 and June 2017 was included. The positive rate of the main indicators of the pH channel and impedance channel of MII-pH monitoring, and the statistical relationships between the reflux indicators were analyzed. Results A total of 1780 patients with GERD were included, 889 of whom were males and 891 females, (51.6±12.9) years old. There were 1026, 1045, 462, 258, 448, 370, and 540 cases of acid reflux, heart burning, belching, chest pain, cough, asthma, and globus sensation symptom, respectively. The positive rate of the pH channel was 26.3%, of which the positive rate of DeMeester score was 25.4%, and that of acid exposure time (AET) was 25.4%. The positive rate of the impedance channel was 69%, where the positive rate of total reflux volume was 21.5%, the numbers of liquid acid reflux episodes and non acid reflux episodes were statistically different (P<0.001), and there was statistically significant difference between the number of liquid acid reflux episodes and that of gas reflux episodes (P<0.001). The positive rate of bolus exposure time (BET) was 40.3%, and the positive rate of symptom reflux association was 53%. The total positive rate of MII-pH monitoring was 71.3%. There was statistically significant difference (P＜0.001) and a statistically significant correlation (r=0.904＞0.9,P＜0.001) between the number of acid reflux episodes of the impedance channel and that of the pH channel. The difference in McNemar chi square test of the positive rate of total reflux volume and symptom reflux association was statistically significant (P<0.001, Kappa=0.15), so was the difference in McNemar chi square test of the positive rate of pH channel and symptom reflux association (P<0.001, Kappa=0.120). Conclusions MII-pH monitoring is highly consistent and more sensitive for detecting acid reflux episodes compared with single pH monitoring. Non-acid reflux and gas reflux episodes detected by the impedance channel of MII-pH monitoring can significantly improve the detection rate of GERD. Analysis of symptom reflux association can improve the detection rate of GERD and even reflux hypersensitivity (esophagus and airway).

Key words： gastroesophageal reflux disease pH monitoring impedance monitoring acid reflux non-acid reflux symptom reflux association

收稿日期: 2018-08-20

ZTFLH:

R571

基金资助:首都临床特色应用研究(Z181100001718198)

通讯作者: 吴继敏,E-mail:drjiminwu@126.com

作者简介: 胡志伟,医学博士,主治医师。

引用本文:

胡志伟, 许辉, 汪忠镐, 吴继敏, 湛莹, 辛荣华, 梁艳, 张玉, 战秀岚, 毛建新. 胃食管反流病pH联合阻抗监测与单纯pH监测效果的对比研究[J]. 武警医学, 2019, 30(1): 8-14. HU Zhiwei, XU Hui, WANG Zhonggao, WU Jimin, ZHAN Ying, XIN Ronghua, LIANG Yan, ZHANG Yu, ZHAN Xiulan, and MAO Jianxin. Comparative study of multiple channel intraluminal pH-impedance reflux monitoring and single pH monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2019, 30(1): 8-14.

链接本文:

http://journal08.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_wjyx/CN/ 或 http://journal08.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_wjyx/CN/Y2019/V30/I1/8

[1]	汪忠镐, 胡志伟. 胃食管反流病及其食管外反流:一个常被忽视的重大公共卫生问题[J]. 临床外科杂志,2016, 24(1): 5-11.
[2]	胡志伟, 吴继敏, 汪忠镐. 胃食管反流气道反流性疾病的诊断学概述[J]. 中国医学文摘(耳鼻咽喉科学),2018, 33(1): 47-52.
[3]	Mermelstein J, Chait Mermelstein A, Chait M M. Proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: challenges and solutions[J]. Clin Exp Gastroenterol,2018, 11: 119-134.
[4]	Katz P O, Gerson L B, Vela M F. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. Am J Gastroenterol,2013, 108 (3) :308-328
[5]	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[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2010, 105(5): 1053-1061.
[6]	Ang D, Ang T L, Teo E K, et al. Is impedance pH monitoring superior to the conventional 24-h pH meter in the evaluation of patients with laryngorespiratory symptoms suspected to be due to gastroesophageal reflux disease?[J]. J Digest Dis, 2011, 12(5): 341-348.
[7]	Nian Y Y, Feng C, Jing F C, et al. Reflux characteristics of 113 GERD patients with abnormal 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH tests[J]. J Zhejiang Univ B, 2015, 16(9):805-810.
[8]	安瑛, 范红, 李岩, 等. 24 h食管多通道腔内阻抗-pH监测在胃食管反流性疾病中的应用及其临床意义[J]. 中国综合临床, 2013, 29(6): 564-567.
[9]	Subramanian C R, Triadafilopoulos G. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. Gastroenterol Rep, 2015, 3(1): 41-53.
[10]	Pavic I, Babic I, Cepin Bogovic J, et al. The importance of combined 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring in the evaluation of children with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux[J]. Clin Otolaryngol, 2017, 42(3): 544-549.
[11]	Suzuki T, Seki Y, Okamoto Y, et al. Hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance leads to the promising outcome of antireflux surgery in Japanese population with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms[J]. Surg Endosc,2017. 32 (5) :1-11
[12]	Zhang C, Wu J, Hu Z, et al. Diagnosis and anti-reflux therapy for GERD with respiratory symptoms: a study using multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring[J]. PLoS One,2016, 11(8): e0160139.
[13]	Wang F, Li P, Ji G Z, et al. An analysis of 342 patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms using questionnaires, high-resolution manometry, and impedance-pH monitoring[J]. Medicine (Baltimore),2017, 96(5): e5906.
[14]	Roman S, Gyawali C P, Savarino E, et al. Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: Update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group[J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017, 29:4-28.
[15]	Patel A, Sayuk G S, Gyawali C P. Parameters on esophageal pH-Impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux Disease[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol,2015,13(5):884-891.
[16]	肖英莲, 林金坤, 彭穗, 等. 联合食管多通道腔内阻抗-pH监测在诊断胃食管反流病中的价值[J]. 中华消化杂志,2009, 29(9): 513-516.
[17]	王伟岸, 张晓, 刘海峰, 等. 基于24 h pH-阻抗监测的难治性胃食管反流病的病理生理分型研究[J]. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志,2015, 24(12): 1453-1456.
[18]	Yamasaki T, Fass R. Reflux hypersensitivity: a new functional esophageal disorder[J]. J Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017, 23(4): 495-503.
[19]	王晓辉, 崔立红, 弓三东, 等. 24h食管pH阻抗监测在胃食管反流性咳嗽中的临床应用[J]. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2016, 25(8): 913-916.
[20]	Choksi Y, Slaughter J C, Sharda R, et al. Symptom association probability does not reliably distinguish functional heartburn from reflux hypersensitivity[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther,2018, 47(7): 958-965.
[21]	El-Serag H B, Havemann B D, Henderson C A. The association between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and asthma: a systematic review[J]. Gut, 2007, 56(12): 1654-1664.
[22]	Smith J, Woodcock A, Houghton L. New developments in reflux-associated cough[J].Lung,2010,188(1):81-86.
[23]	Abou-Ismail A, Vaezi M F. Evaluation of patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux: a practical approach[J]. Curr Gastroenterol Rep,2011, 13(3): 213-218.
[24]	Wu J C. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring for patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux: Is it ready to use?[J]. J Neurogastroenterol Motil,2010, 16(2): 108-109.
[25]	Rosen R, Amirault J, Heinz N, et al. The sensitivity of acoustic cough recording relative to intraesophageal pressure recording and patient report during reflux testing[J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil,2014,26(11):1635-1641.
[26]	Herregods T V K, Pauwels A, Jafari J, et al. Ambulatory pH-impedance-pressure monitoring as a diagnostic tool for the reflux-cough syndrome[J]. Dis Esophagus,2018, 31(1): 1-7.
[27]	王嘉森, 李进让, 李晓雨, 等. 24h多通道腔内阻抗联合pH监测诊断咽喉反流的初步应用[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2015, 50(7): 564-568.
[28]	胡志伟, 田书瑞, 吴继敏, 等. 胃食管反流病的普通胃镜学特点:4086例统计分析[J]. 解放军医学杂志, 2018, 43(1): 41-47.
[29]	Lee S W, Chang C M, Chang C S, et al. Comparison of presentation and impact on quality of life of gastroesophageal reflux disease between young and old adults in a Chinese population[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2011, 17(41): 4614-4618.
[30]	Bashashati M, Sarosiek I, McCallum R W. Epidemiology and mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux disease in the elderly: a perspective[J]. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2016, 1380(1): 230-234.