无线食管pH胶囊在咽喉反流诊断中的价值

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2015.04.002

中华胃食管反流病电子杂志 ›› 2015, Vol. 02 ›› Issue (04) : 197 -201. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2015.04.002

所属专题：文献；

论著

无线食管pH胶囊在咽喉反流诊断中的价值

陈嘉韦¹, 陈龙平², 李达周², 王蓉², 江传燊², 郑林福², 王雯²^,^†(

)

^1. 230001　安徽合肥，安徽医科大学福州总医院临床学院；350025　福建福州，南京军区福州总医院消化内科
^2. 350025　福建福州，南京军区福州总医院消化内科

收稿日期:2015-10-13 出版日期:2015-11-15
通信作者: 王雯
基金资助:
南京军区医学科技创新重点项目(12Z35); 福建省科技计划重点项目(2014l0005)

The value of wireless pH capsule monitoring in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux

Jiawei Chen¹, Longping Chen², Dazhou Li², Rong Wang², Chuanshen Jiang², Linfu Zheng², Wen Wang²^,^†()

^1. Clinical College of Fuzhou General Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230001, China; Department of Gastroenterology, Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command, Fuzhou 350025, China
^2. Department of Gastroenterology, Fuzhou General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command, Fuzhou 350025, China

Received:2015-10-13 Published:2015-11-15
Corresponding author: Wen Wang
About author:
Corresponding author: Wang Wen, Email: wangw68@medmail.com.cn

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

引用本文：

陈嘉韦, 陈龙平, 李达周, 王蓉, 江传燊, 郑林福, 王雯. 无线食管pH胶囊在咽喉反流诊断中的价值[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2015, 02(04): 197-201.

Jiawei Chen, Longping Chen, Dazhou Li, Rong Wang, Chuanshen Jiang, Linfu Zheng, Wen Wang. The value of wireless pH capsule monitoring in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux[J]. Chinese Journal of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease(Electronic Edition), 2015, 02(04): 197-201.

目的

探讨无线食管pH胶囊在咽喉反流诊断中的应用价值，以及胃食管反流病与咽喉反流的相关性。

方法

对12例有咽喉反流症状、咽喉反流症状指数量表(RSI)大于13分的的患者(LPR组)及12例健康志愿者(对照组)，行咽喉反流症状指数量表(RSI)评分，再进行食管双pH胶囊监测48 h。监测期间记录饮食、睡眠、活动、服药等情况及不适症状，比较两组食管上下段反流的监测情况，并对胃食管反流指标及咽喉反流指标进行相关性分析。

结果

LPR组pH胶囊监测检出的平均咽喉反流次数、食管下段的DeMeester评分(DMS)高于对照组，与RSI评分相符，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。LPR组咽喉反流次数与DMS显著相关。监测过程中未出现严重的不良反应。

结论

无线食管pH胶囊可用于咽喉反流的pH监测及诊断，有良好的准确性、耐受性、安全性。

关键词: 咽喉反流, 食管pH胶囊

Objective

To investigate the correlation between gastroesophageal reflux and laryngopharyngeal reflux(LPR)and the clincal value of wireless pH capsule monitoring in the diagnosis of LPR.

Methods

Tweleve patients with LPR symptoms who scored more than 13 in reflux symptoms index(RSI)test and tweleve healthy volunteers were recruited.They were required to receive RSI test and 48-hour dual wireless pH monitoring.The details of meals, sleep, activities, and discomfort were recorded.The acid exposure and the correlation of proximal and distal esophageal were analyzed.

Results

The LPR episodes and DMS in LPR patients were significantly higher than that in healthy volunteer group(P<0.05), in coincidence with the RSI scores.The LPR episodes were correlated with DMS in LPR patients significantly.There were not any severe side effects during monitoring.

Conclusion

Wireless pH capsule is effective in pH monitoring in laryngopharyngeal reflux with high accuracy, safety and tolerance.

Key words: Laryngopharyngeal reflux, Wireless pH capsule

图1 食管pH胶囊的位置。A、B分别为胃镜直视下食管上段、下段pH胶囊的位置，C为胸片下双食管pH胶囊的位置，分别平第3、8胸椎水平。

图2 食管近端pH胶囊和远端pH监测同步监测结果。A：食管近端pH值变化，B：食管远端pH值变化。A图箭头所指方向为监测到的一次咽喉反流。

图3 咽喉反流次数和RSI、DMS评分的相关性。A：对照组咽喉反流次数和DMS无明显相关关系，P>0.05。B：LPR组咽喉反流次数与DMS间存在正相关性的关系(P<0.05，r＝0.672)。C：LPR组咽喉反流次数与RSI评分间存在较强的相关性(P<0.05，r＝0.762)。

表1 两组DMS及咽喉反流次数

参数	RSI评分	咽喉反流次数	DMS
对照组	5.00±2.40	1.00±0.95	4.80±3.43
LPR组	16.75±3.08	10.17±5.73	27.39±10.57
P值	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

表1 两组DMS及咽喉反流次数

参数	RSI评分	咽喉反流次数	DMS
对照组	5.00±2.40	1.00±0.95	4.80±3.43
LPR组	16.75±3.08	10.17±5.73	27.39±10.57
P值	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

1	El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, et al.Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review[J]. Gut, 2014, 63(6): 871-880.
2	王晓巍，倪道凤．胃食管反流与慢性咽喉炎[J]．中华耳鼻咽喉科杂志，2004，39(1)：55-58.
3	黄悦，夏志伟．24小时食管pH电极定位方法及其应用[J]．临床消化病杂志，2012，24(3)：187-189.
4	Vaezi MF, Schroeder PL, Richter JE.Reproducibility of proximal probe pH parameters in 24-hour ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 1997, 92: 825-829.
5	Han MS, Lada MJ, Nieman DR, et al.24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring may be an inadequate test for detecting gastroesophageal reflux in patients with mixed typical and atypical symptoms[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015, 29(7): 1700-1708.
6	Neto SC, Herbella FA, Silva LC, et al.Ratio between proximal/distal gastroesophageal reflux does not discriminate abnormal proximal reflux[J]. World J Surg, 2014, 38(4): 890-896.
7	Mazzoleni G, Vailati C, Lisma DG, et al.Correlation between oropharyngeal pH-monitoring and esophageal pH-impedance monitoring in patients with suspected GERD-related extra-esophageal symptoms[J]. Neurogastroenterol Motility, 2014, 26: 1557-1564.
8	Madanick RD.Extraesophageal presentations of GERD: Where is the science[J]？Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 2014, 43(1): 105-120.
9	Friedman M, Schalch P, Vidyasagar R, et al.Wireless upper esophageal monitoring for laryngopharyngeal reflux(LPR)[J]. Otolalaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2007, 137: 471-476.
10	Francis DO, Sumner E, Goutte M, et al.Feasibility of dual wireless esophageal pH monitoring: randomized blinded sham-controlled trial[J]. Otolalaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2012, 147(1): 91-97.
11	汤进芝，王蓉，郑林福，等．国产食管pH胶囊与导管式24h食管pH监测的有效性、安全性及耐受性比较[J]．临床消化病杂志，2014，26(2)：68-71.
12	Yang XJ, Gan T, Wang L, et al.Wireless esophageal pH capsule for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: A multicenter clinical study[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2014, 20(40): 14865-14874.
13	Becker V, Drabner R, Graf S. New aspects in the pathomechanisim and diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux-clinical impact of laryngeal propton pumps and pharyngeal pH metry in extroesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(3): 982-987.
14	Komatsu Y, Hoppo T, Jobe BA.Proximal reflux as a cause of adult-onset asthma: the case for hypopharyngeal impedance testing to improve the sensitivity of diagnosis[J]. JAMA Surg, 2013, 148(1): 50-58.
15	Musser J, Keichner L, Neils-Srunjas J, et al.A comparison of rating scales used in the diagnosis of extroesophageal reflux[J]. J Voice, 2011, 25(3): 293-300.
16	Btunworth JD, Garg R, Mahboubi H, et al.Detecting Nasopharyngeal Reflux: A Novel pH Probe Technique[J]. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 2012, 121(7): 427-430.
17	张园园，胡国华．咽喉反流的研究进展[J]．临床耳鼻咽喉头劲外科杂志，2010，24(1)：45-47.
18	Bechtold ML, Holly JS, Thaler K, et al.Bravo(wireless)ambulatory esophageal ph monitoring: how do day1 and day2 result compare[J]? World J Gastroenterol, 2007, 13(30): 4091-4095.
19	Tsou YK, Lien JM, Chen CK, et al.Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with conscious sedation does not interfere with catheter-based 24-h pH monitoring[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2013, 19(11): 1805-1810.
20	Tankurt E, Tüzömay N, Sengül B, et al.Safety and tolerability of Bravo capsule pH monitoring[J]. Turk J Gastroenterol, 2011, 22(3): 352-353.
21	Krarup AL, Simren M, Funch-Jensen P, et al.The esophageal multimodal pain model: normal values and degree of sensitization in healthy young male volunteers[J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2011, 56(7): 1967-1975.
22	陈龙平，汤进芝，吴光勤，等．食管pH胶囊与鼻导管式食管pH监测在诊断非糜烂性反流病中的技术缺陷[J]．中华消化杂志，2014，34(11)：760-762.
23	de Hoyos A, Esparza EA.Technical problesms produced by Bravo pH test in nonerosive reflux disease patients[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2010, 16(25): 3183-3186.
24	Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, et al.Acid reflux immediately above the squamocolumnar junction and in the distal esophagus: simultaneous pH monitoring using the wireless capsule pH system[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2006, 101: 1734-1741.

[1]	郭小平, 张弓剑, 吴梅. 咽喉反流对声带接触性肉芽肿治疗的研究[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2018, 05(04): 160-163.
[2]	刘晓勇, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 咽喉反流病与胃食管反流病关系的研究进展[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2018, 05(02): 81-84.
[3]	史冬梅, 张瑾, 唐亮. 声带息肉伴咽喉反流患者手术前后嗓音客观分析[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2016, 03(01): 16-18.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

The value of wireless pH capsule monitoring in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

The value of wireless pH capsule monitoring in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux