Exclusion of pH artifacts is essential for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring

Steven P. Harrell, Jennifer Koopman, Scheryl Woosley, John Wo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)470-474
Number of pages5
JournalLaryngoscope
Volume117
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Artifacts
Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
Meals
Esophagus
Swallows
Hypopharynx
Physiologic Monitoring
Chi-Square Distribution
Deglutition

Keywords

  • Ambulatory pH monitoring
  • Gastroesophageal reflux disease
  • Laryngopharyngeal reflux
  • pH artifacts

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Exclusion of pH artifacts is essential for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring. / Harrell, Steven P.; Koopman, Jennifer; Woosley, Scheryl; Wo, John.

In: Laryngoscope, Vol. 117, No. 3, 03.2007, p. 470-474.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harrell, Steven P. ; Koopman, Jennifer ; Woosley, Scheryl ; Wo, John. / Exclusion of pH artifacts is essential for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring. In: Laryngoscope. 2007 ; Vol. 117, No. 3. pp. 470-474.
@article{22111bbd68c64306a3ee974385b12dd2,
title = "Exclusion of pH artifacts is essential for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Ambulatory pH monitoring, Gastroesophageal reflux disease, Laryngopharyngeal reflux, pH artifacts",
author = "Harrell, {Steven P.} and Jennifer Koopman and Scheryl Woosley and John Wo",
year = "2007",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/MLG.0b013e31802d344c",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "117",
pages = "470--474",
journal = "Laryngoscope",
issn = "0023-852X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exclusion of pH artifacts is essential for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring

AU - Harrell, Steven P.

AU - Koopman, Jennifer

AU - Woosley, Scheryl

AU - Wo, John

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Ambulatory pH monitoring

KW - Gastroesophageal reflux disease

KW - Laryngopharyngeal reflux

KW - pH artifacts

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947121337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947121337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31802d344c

DO - 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31802d344c

M3 - Article

VL - 117

SP - 470

EP - 474

JO - Laryngoscope

JF - Laryngoscope

SN - 0023-852X

IS - 3

ER -