基于“里昂共识”对胃食管反流病阻抗-pH监测参数的分析和比较

张静; 王智凤; 柯美云; 方秀才; 李晓青; 章家常; 舒柯; 孙晓红

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003407

基于“里昂共识”对胃食管反流病阻抗-pH监测参数的分析和比较

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003407

张静^{1, 2},
王智凤¹,
柯美云¹,
方秀才¹,
李晓青¹,
章家常^{1, 3},
舒柯^{1, 4},
孙晓红^{1, 5, ,}

1.
中国医学科学院北京协和医院消化内科，北京 100730
2.
北京市宣武中医医院脾胃病科，北京 100050
3.
保山市人民医院消化内科，云南保山 678000
4.
株洲市三三一医院消化内科，湖南株洲 412000
5.
中国医学科学院北京协和医院老年医学科

基金项目:

国家重点研发计划项目 2018YFC2000300

北京协和医院中央高水平医院临床科研专项项目 2022-PUMCH-B-132

详细信息

通讯作者:
孙晓红，E-mail：sunxiaoh2010@126.com

中图分类号: R571 R573
计量
- 文章访问数: 140
- HTML全文浏览量: 45
- PDF下载量: 4
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-06-06
- 网络出版日期: 2024-05-27

Analysis and comparison of impedance-pH monitoring parameters in diagnosis of GERD based on the "Lyon Consensus"

ZHANG Jing^{1, 2},
WANG Zhifeng¹,
KE Meiyun¹,
FANG Xiucai¹,
LI Xiaoqing¹,
ZHANG Jiachang^{1, 3},
SHU Ke^{1, 4},
SUN Xiaohong^{1, 5
, ,}

1.
Department of Gastroenterology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China

摘要

摘要: 目的对胃食管反流病(GERD)患者食管pH和阻抗-pH监测反流参数的结果按照“里昂共识”标准进行回顾性分析，并比较传统DeMeester评分(DMS)和酸暴露时间(AET)参数。方法选取2008年1月—2022年12月北京协和医院胃肠动力中心接受24 h食管pH监测或阻抗-pH监测的GERD患者共1 023例，分别采用DMS和AET标准对检测结果进行重新分析及比较。结果 (1) 根据“里昂共识”AET标准，AET的灵敏度为94.7%，特异度为99.0%，DMS的灵敏度为98.1%，特异度为97.2%，DMS较AET灵敏度高，而AET的特异度高于DMS。2种方法监测结果比较具有高度的一致性(P < 0.05)。(2)在AET 4%~6%的105例患者中，DMS阳性和DMS阴性2组间酸反流次数、>5 min次数、最长酸反流时间和卧位pH＜4的百分比(卧位%)比较差异有统计学意义，提示有必要对AET以外的参数进行考量和分析。(3)105例AET 4%~6%的患者中，有超过50%的患者仍不能确定是否存在病理性反流。结论 “里昂共识”AET标准和DMS标准具有较好的一致性，均能对食管酸暴露提供有力的支持证据，AET的灵敏度低于DMS，而特异度高于DMS。如果将AET>4%定为酸反流阳性，则可提高AET的灵敏度。
- 胃食管反流病 /
- pH监测 /
- DeMeester评分 /
- 酸暴露时间
Abstract: Objective This study retrospectively reanalyzed the reflux parameters of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) detected through esophageal pH and impedance pH monitoring, following the "Lyon Consensus". The DeMeester scores (DMS) were compared to the acid exposure time (AET). Methods This study included a total of 1 023 GERD patients who underwent 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring or impedance pH monitoring at the Gastrointestinal Dynamics Center of Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2008 to December 2022. The reflux parameters were reanalyzed and compared using DMS and AET, respectively. Results (1) According to the "Lyon Consensus", AET demonstrates 94.7% sensitivity and 99.0% specificity, while DMS shows 98.1% sensitivity and 97.2% specificity. DMS exhibits higher sensitivity than AET, whereas AET has greater specificity than DMS. The monitoring results of the both methods are highly consistent (P < 0.05). (2) Among the 105 patients with AET ranging from 4% to 6%, they were divided into DMS (+) and DMS (-) groups. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the total number of reflux episodes, number of reflux episodes lasting≥5 min, %supine time esophageal pH < 4, and longest reflux episode (in minutes). These findings suggest that these parameters should be considered and analyzed in addition to AET. (3) It is worth noting that more than 50% GERD patients with AET ranging from 4% to 6% still cannot determine the presence or absence of pathological reflux. Conclusion Both the diagnostic standards of AET and DMS provide robust supporting evidence for esophageal acid exposure. AET exhibits lower sensitivity but higher specificity compared to DMS. To enhance the sensitivity of AET, considering the hypothesis of AET>4% demonstrates esophageal acid exposure might be beneficial.
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease /
- pH monitoring /
- DeMeester score /
- Acid exposure time

HTML全文

表 1 DMS和AET诊断酸反流的一致性比较[例(%)]

Table 1. Consistency comparison between DMS and AET in diagnosing acid reflux [cases (%)]

组别	AET＜4%	AET 4%~6%	AET＞6%	合计
DMS阳性	17(2.8)	77(73.3)	305(98.1)	399(39.0)
DMS阴性	590(97.2)	28(26.7)	6(1.9)	624(61.0)
合计	607(59.3)	105(10.3)	311(30.4)	1 023(100.0)
注：Kappa=0.945，P < 0.001。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 DMS阳性和DMS阴性AET 4%~6%患者监测参数比较[M(P₂₅, P₇₅)]

Table 2. Comparison of monitoring parameters in AET 4%-6% patients based on DMS positivity and negativity [M(P₂₅, P₇₅)]

组别	例数	酸反流次数(次)	＞5 min次数(次)	最长酸反流时间(min)	立位%	卧位%
DMS阴性	28	44.5(31.3, 54.5)	1.1(1.0, 2.0)	8.6(6.7, 11.5)	6.3(5.7, 7.0)	0(0, 0.4)
DMS阳性	77	55.0(36.0, 72.5)	2.0(1.1, 3.6)	11.1(8.0, 18.8)	2.9(5.4, 7.8)	3.2(0.7, 6.9)
Z值		-2.229	-2.867	-2.877	-0.518	-5.295
P值		0.026	0.004	0.004	0.604	< 0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 不同反流事件次数AET 4%~6%患者DMS评分比较[例(%)]

Table 3. Comparison of DMS scores in AET 4%-6% patients with varying reflux events [cases (%)]

反流事件次数	DMS阴性	DMS阳性	合计
< 40次/24 h	12(42.8)	20(26.0)	32(30.5)
40~80次/24 h	15(53.6)	41(53.2)	56(53.3)
>80次/24 h	1(3.6)	16(20.8)	17(16.2)
总计	28(26.7)	77(73.3)	105(100.0)
注：χ²=5.676，P=0.059。

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 DMS和AET(最佳截断值为4%时)诊断酸反流的一致性比较[例(%)]

Table 4. Consistency comparison in reflux monitoring between DMS and AET (cut off >4%)

组别	AET≤4%	AET＞4%	合计
DMS阳性	20(3.2)	385(94.6)	405(39.6)
DMS阴性	596(96.8)	22(5.4)	618(60.4)
合计	616(60.2)	407(39.8)	1 023(100.0)
注：Kappa=0.914，P < 0.001。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(19)

[1]	KATZKA D A, KAHRILAS P J. Advances in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. BMJ, 2020, 371: m3786. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3786.
[2]	周金池, 赵曙光, 王新, 等. 中国部分地区基于社区人群胃食管反流病患病率Meta分析[J]. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2020, 29(9): 1012-1020. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5709.2020.09.012 ZHOU J C, ZHAO S G, WANG X, et al. Meta-analysis of the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease based on community population in some areas of China[J]. Chinese Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2020, 29(9): 1012-1020. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5709.2020.09.012
[3]	VISAGGI P, DEL CORSO G, GYAWALI C P, et al. Ambulatory pH-impedance findings confirm that grade B Esophagitis provides objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2023, 118(5): 794-801. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002173
[4]	RUSU R I, FOX M R, TUCKER E, et al. Validation of the Lyon classification for GORD diagnosis: acid exposure time assessed by prolonged Wireless pH-monitoring in healthy controls and patients with erosive oesophagitis[J]. Gut, 2021, 70(12): 2230-2237. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323798
[5]	GYAWALI C P, KAHRILAS P J, SAVARINO E, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus[J]. Gut, 2018, 67(7): 1351-1362. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722
[6]	NETO R M L, HERBELLA F A M, SCHLOTTMANN F, et al. Does DeMeester score still define GERD?[J]. Dis Esophagus, 2019, 32(5): doy118. DOI: 10.1093/dote/doy118.
[7]	GYAWALI C P, YADLAPATI R, FASS R, et al. Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0[J]. Gut, 2024, 73(2): 361-371. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330616
[8]	任梦华, 孙淑珍, 王红建, 等. 经口内镜下贲门缩窄术治疗反流性食管炎效果分析[J]. 中华实用诊断与治疗杂志, 2022, 36(8): 841-844. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNZD202208020.htm REN M H, SUN S Z, WANG H J, et al. Efficacy of peroral endoscopic cardial constriction on reflux esophagitis[J]. Journal of Chinese Practical Diagnosis and Therapy, 2022, 36(8): 841-844. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNZD202208020.htm
[9]	陈琰, 隋昕珂, 黄鑫, 等. 反流性食管炎患者食管外症状的危险因素分析[J]. 解放军医学杂志, 2021, 46(8): 808-811. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JFJY202108011.htm CHEN Y, SUI X K, HUANG X, et al. Clinical study of risk factors associated with extraesophageal symptoms in patients with reflux esophagitis[J]. Medical Journal of Chinese People ' s Liberation Army, 2021, 46(8): 808-811. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JFJY202108011.htm
[10]	于爱萍, 董新华, 李珂, 等. 腹腔镜Nissen与Toupet胃底折叠术治疗难治性胃食管反流病的效果比较[J]. 中国实用医刊, 2021, 48(22): 1-4. YU A P, DONG X H, LI K, et al. Comparison of effects of laparoscopic Nissen versus Toupet fundoplication in the treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Medicine, 2021, 48(22): 1-4.
[11]	吴国丽, 邱晶, 李晓慧, 等. 逍遥丸联合兰索拉唑治疗老年胃食道反流病的疗效及对胃肠激素的影响[J]. 药物评价研究, 2020, 43(7): 1335-1338. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YWPJ202007023.htm WU G L, QIU J, LI X H, et al. Efficacy of Xiaoyao Pills combined with lansoprazole in treatment of senile gastroesophageal reflux disease and its effect on gastrointestinal hormones[J]. Drug Evaluation Research, 2020, 43(7): 1335-1338. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YWPJ202007023.htm
[12]	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(10): 1-15.
[13]	HOSHINO M, OMURA N, YANO F, et al. Comparison of the multichannel intraluminal impedance pH and conventional pH for measuring esophageal acid exposure: a propensity score-matched analysis[J]. Surg Endosc, 2017, 31(12): 5241-5247. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5595-9
[14]	STREETS C G, DEMEESTER T R. Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: why, when, and what to do[J]. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2003, 37(1): 14-22. doi: 10.1097/00004836-200307000-00007
[15]	ANG D, XU Y, ANG T L, et al. Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: establishing values in a multiracial cohort of asymptomatic Asian subjects[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2013, 45(5): 371-376. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2012.11.014
[16]	HASAK S, YADLAPATI R, ALTAYAR O, et al. Prolonged Wireless pH monitoring in patients with persistent reflux symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor therapy[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2020, 18(13): 2912-2919. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.031
[17]	SIFRIM D, ROMAN S, SAVARINO E, et al. Normal values and regional differences in oesophageal impedance-pH metrics: a consensus analysis of impedance-pH studies from around the world[J]. Gut, 2021, 70(8): 1441-1449. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322627
[18]	GYAWALI C P, TUTUIAN R, ZERBIB F, et al. Value of pH impedance monitoring while on twice-daily proton pump inhibitor therapy to identify need for escalation of reflux management[J]. Gastroenterology, 2021, 161(5): 1412-1422. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.004
[19]	SPECHLER S J, HUNTER J G, JONES K M, et al. Randomized trial of medical versus surgical treatment for refractory heartburn[J]. N Engl J Med, 2019, 381(16): 1513-1523. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1811424