The Dubai Definition and Diagnostic Criteria of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: The IFOS Consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to gather an international consensus group to propose a global definition and diagnostic approach of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) to guide primary care and specialist physicians in the management of LPR. METHODS: Forty-eight international experts (otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, and physiologists) were included in a modified Delphi process to revise 48 statements about definition, clinical presentation, and diagnostic approaches to LPR. Three voting rounds determined a consensus statement to be acceptable when 80% of experts agreed with a rating of at least 8/10. Votes were anonymous and the analyses of voting rounds were performed by an independent statistician. RESULTS: After the third round, 79.2% of statements (N = 38/48) were approved. LPR was defined as a disease of the upper aerodigestive tract resulting from the direct and/or indirect effects of gastroduodenal content reflux, inducing morphological and/or neurological changes in the upper aerodigestive tract. LPR is associated with recognized non-specific laryngeal and extra-laryngeal symptoms and signs that can be evaluated with validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires and clinical instruments. The hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH testing can suggest the diagnosis of LPR when there is >1 acid, weakly acid or nonacid hypopharyngeal reflux event in 24 h. CONCLUSION: A global consensus definition for LPR is presented to improve detection and diagnosis of the disease for otolaryngologists, pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, and primary care practitioners. The approved statements are offered to improve collaborative research by adopting common and validated diagnostic approaches to LPR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 134:1614-1624, 2024.

Need for frequent dilations after magnetic sphincter augmentation: an assessment of associated factors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia is the most common complaint after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA), with nearly one-third of patients requiring at least one dilation following MSA. A subset of patients require frequent dilations, but there is a paucity of data on the characteristics of this population. This study aimed to identify predictors of the need for frequent dilations within the first year after implant and to assess these patients' outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MSA over an 8-year period. Frequent dilations were defined as 2 or more dilations within 1 year of surgery. Patients completed baseline and 1-year postoperative GERD-HRQL questionnaires and objective physiology testing. Baseline demographic, clinical characteristics, and objective testing data were compared between patients who did and did not require frequent dilations. RESULTS: A total of 697 (62.7% female) patients underwent MSA, with 62 (8.9%) patients requiring frequent dilation. At a mean (SD) of 12.3 (3.4) months follow-up, the frequent dilation group had higher median GERD-HRQL total scores (21.0 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001), PPI use (20.8% vs.10.1%, p = 0.023), dissatisfaction (46.7% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001), and device removal (25.8% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001) rates. Acid normalization was comparable (p = 0.997). Independent predictors of frequent dilation included preoperative odynophagia (OR 2.85; p = 0.001), IRP > 15 mmHg (OR 2.88; p = 0.006), and > 30% incomplete bolus clearance (OR 1.94; p = 0.004). At a mean (SD) of 15.7 (10.7) months, 28 (45.1%) patients underwent device removal after frequent dilation. Independent predictors of device removal after frequent dilation within 5 years of surgery were preoperative odynophagia (OR 7.18; p = 0.042), LES resting pressure > 45 mmHg (OR 28.5; p = 0.005), and ≥ 10% failed swallows (OR 23.5; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The need for frequent dilations after MSA is a marker for poor symptom control, dissatisfaction, and device removal. Patients with preoperative odynophagia, high LES pressures, and poor esophageal motility should be counseled of their risk for these poor outcomes.

Predictors of favorable outcome after pyloroplasty for gastroparesis: should response to pyloric dilation or Botox injection be used as a marker of surgical outcome?

INTRODUCTION: Pyloroplasty and gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) are effective surgeries for gastroparesis. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of pyloroplasty and G-POEM in patients with gastroparesis and determine factors associated with favorable outcome. The secondary aim was to assess the utility of clinical response to preoperative pyloric dilation or botulinum toxin injection (Botox) on surgical outcome, a factor conventionally used as a favorable marker. METHODS: There were 204 patients who underwent pyloroplasty (n = 177) or G-POEM (n = 27) for gastroparesis at our institution from 2014 to 2021. Demographic and clinical parameters were analyzed to assess their impact on surgical outcome. A subgroup of patients who had pyloric dilation or Botox injection were assessed separately. Favorable outcome was defined as patient reported complete resolution of the predominant gastroparesis symptom. RESULTS: Favorable outcome was achieved in 78.4% of patients (pyloroplasty: 79.7% and G-POEM: 70.4%, p = 0.274). Among 61 patients where pre- and postoperative gastric emptying studies (GES) were available, mean 4-hour retention significantly improved from 33.5 to 15.0% (p < 0.001) and 77.0% of patients achieved normalization. Favorable outcome was not significantly impacted by etiology of gastroparesis (p = 0.120), GERD (p = 0.518), or primary gastroparesis symptom (p = 0.244). Age ≥ 40 was a significant predictor of favorable surgical outcome on multivariate analysis [OR: 2.476 (1.224-5.008), p = 0.012]. Among the patients who had preoperative dilation (n = 82) or Botox injection (n = 46), response to these interventions was not a predictor of favorable surgical outcome (p = 0.192 and 0.979, respectively). However, preoperative Botox injection, regardless of response to injection, was associated with favorable surgical outcome [OR: 3.205 (CI 1.105-9.299), p = 0.032]. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic improvement after pyloroplasty or G-POEM is independent of etiology of gastroparesis, GERD, and primary symptom. Response to dilation or Botox are not markers of response to surgery. However, patients who receive Botox are 3.2 times more likely to improve postoperatively.

Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) erosion, disruption or displacement clearly requires device removal. However, up to 5.5% of patients without anatomical failure require removal for dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms. Studies characterizing these patients or their management are limited. We aimed to characterize these patients, compare their outcomes, and determine the necessity for further reflux surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 777 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2021. Patients who underwent device removal for persistent dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms were included. Demographic, clinical, objective testing, and quality of life data obtained preoperatively, after implantation and following removal were compared between removal for dysphagia and GERD groups. Sub-analyses were performed comparing outcomes with and without an anti-reflux surgery (ARS) at the time of removal. RESULTS: A total of 40 (5.1%) patients underwent device removal, 31 (77.5%) for dysphagia and 9 (22.5%) for GERD. After implantation, dysphagia patients had less heartburn (12.9-vs-77.7%, p = 0.0005) less regurgitation (16.1-vs-55.5%, p = 0.0286), and more pH-normalization (91.7-vs-33.3%, p = 0.0158). Removal without ARS was performed in 5 (55.6%) GERD and 22 (71.0%) dysphagia patients. Removal for dysphagia patients had more complete symptom resolution (63.6-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0159), freedom from PPIs (81.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0016) and pH-normalization (77.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0455). Patients who underwent removal for dysphagia had comparable symptom resolution (p = 0.6770, freedom from PPI (p = 0.3841) and pH-normalization (p = 0.2534) with or without ARS. Those who refused ARS with removal for GERD had more heartburn (100.0%-vs-25.0%, p = 0.0476), regurgitation (80.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476) and PPI use (75.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476). CONCLUSIONS: MSA removal outcomes are dependent on the indication for removal. Removal for dysphagia yields excellent outcomes regardless of anti-reflux surgery. Patients with persistent GERD had worse outcomes on all measures without ARS. We propose a tailored approach to MSA removal-based indication for removal.

The Impact of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation (MSA) on Esophagogastric Junction (EGJ) and Esophageal Body Physiology and Manometric Characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of MSA on lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and esophageal body using high resolution impedance manometry. BACKGROUND: MSA is an effective treatment in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, but there is limited data on its impact on esophageal functional physiology. METHODS: Patients who underwent MSA were approached 1-year after surgery for objective foregut testing consists of upper endoscopy, esophagram, high resolution impedance manometry, and esophageal pH-monitoring. Postoperative data were then compared to the preoperative measurements. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in this study. At a mean follow up of 14.9(10.1) months, 72% had normalization of esophageal acid exposure. MSA resulted in an increase in mean LES resting pressure [29.3(12.9) vs 25(12.3), P < 0.001]. This was also true for LES overall length [2.9(0.6) vs 2.6(0.6), P = 0.02] and intra-abdominal length [1.2(0.7) vs 0.8(0.8), P < 0.001]. Outflow resistance at the EGJ increased after MSA as demonstrated by elevation in intrabolus pressure (19.6 vs 13.5 mmHg, P < 0.001) and integrated relaxation pressure (13.5 vs 7.2, P < 0.001). MSA was also associated with an increase in distal esophageal body contraction amplitude [103.8(45.4) vs 94.1(39.1), P = 0.015] and distal contractile integral [2647.1(2064.4) vs 2099.7(1656.1), P < 0.001]. The percent peristalsis and incomplete bolus clearance remained unchanged ( P = 0.47 and 0.08, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: MSA results in improvement in the LES manometric characteristics. Although the device results in an increased outflow resistance at the EGJ, the compensatory increase in the force of esophageal contraction will result in unaltered esophageal peristaltic progression and bolus clearance.

GERD after Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: Assessment of Incidence and Predisposing Factors.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an effective intervention for achalasia, but GERD is a major postoperative adverse event. This study aimed to characterize post-POEM GERD and identify preoperative or technical factors impacting development or severity of GERD. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent POEM at our institution. Favorable outcome was defined as postoperative Eckardt score of 3 or less. Subjective GERD was defined as symptoms consistent with reflux. Objective GERD was based on a DeMeester score greater than 14.7 or Los Angeles grade C or D esophagitis. Severe GERD was defined as a DeMeester score greater than 50.0 or Los Angeles grade D esophagitis Preoperative clinical and objective data and technical surgical elements were compared between those with and without GERD. Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each GERD definition. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients underwent POEM. At a mean ± SD follow-up of 21.7 ± 20.7 months, 93.4% achieved favorable outcome. Subjective, objective, and severe objective GERD were found in 38.8%, 50.5%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively. Of those with objective GERD, 24.0% had no reflux symptoms. Women were more likely to report GERD symptoms (p = 0.007), but objective GERD rates were similar between sexes (p = 0.606). The independent predictors for objective GERD were normal preoperative diameter of esophagus (odds ratio [OR] 3.4; p = 0.008) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure less than 45 mmHg (OR 1.86; p = 0.027). The independent predictors for severe objective GERD were LES pressure less than 45 mmHg (OR 6.57; p = 0.007) and obesity (OR 5.03; p = 0.005). The length of esophageal or gastric myotomy or indication of procedure had no impact on the incidence or severity of GERD. CONCLUSION: The rate of pathologic GERD after POEM is higher than symptomatic GERD. A nonhypertensive preoperative LES is a predictor for post-POEM GERD. No modifiable factors impact GERD after POEM.

Reflux-related Extraesophageal Symptoms Until Proven Otherwise: A Direct Measurement of Abnormal Proximal Exposure Based on Hypopharyngeal Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance as a Reliable Indicator for Successful Treatment Outcomes.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Lyon Consensus defined parameters based on upper endoscopy and 24-hour combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH), that conclusively establish the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the true role of upper endoscopy and MII-pH to evaluate patients with extraesophageal symptoms (EES) has not been well established. Hypopharyngeal MII (HMII), which directly measures laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) events, has been utilized to evaluate patients with EES suggestive of LPR. METHODS: This was a retrospective study involving patients with EES for > 12 weeks despite proton pump inhibitor therapy, and had no endoscopic confirmatory evidence for GERD and negative MII-pH. All patients were subsequently referred for further evaluation of EES with "unknown" etiology and underwent laryngoscopy and HMII. Based on HMII, abnormal proximal exposure (APE) was defined as LPR ≥ 1/day and/or full column reflux (reflux 2 cm distal to the upper esophageal sphincter) > 4/day. Patients with APE were offered antireflux surgery (ARS) and the outcome of ARS was objectively assessed using Reflux Symptom Index. RESULTS: Of 21 patients with EES which was thought to be GERD-unrelated based on endoscopy and MII-pH, 17 patients (81%) had APE. Eight patients with APE who had undergone ARS had significant symptomatic improvement in the Reflux Symptom Index score (19.6 ± 4.9 pre-ARS to 5.8 ± 1.4 post-ARS, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: A conventional diagnostic approach using endoscopy and MII-pH may not be sufficient to evaluate patients with EES suggestive of LPR. HMII is essential to evaluate patients with EES, and APE could be a reliable indicator for successful treatment outcomes.

Normative Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Metrics for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A Systematic Review of 720 Healthy Individuals.

OBJECTIVES: To review the normative data for acid, weakly acid, and nonacid proximal esophageal (PRE) and hypopharyngeal reflux (HRE) events in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) using ambulatory reflux monitoring. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: A literature search was conducted about the normative data for PRE and HRE on multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH), hypopharyngeal-esophageal MII-pH (HEMII-pH), or oropharyngeal pH monitoring using PICOTS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing, and setting) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statements. Outcomes reviewed included device characteristics, impedance/pH sensor placements, study duration, number/average and percentiles of PRE or HRE occurrence, and the event characteristics (pH, composition, and position). RESULTS: Of 154 identified studies, 18 met criteria for analysis, including 720 healthy individuals. HEMII-pH, MII-pH, and oropharyngeal pH monitoring were used in 7, 6, and 5 studies, respectively. The definition and inclusion/exclusion criteria of healthy individuals varied substantially across studies, with 6 studies considering only digestive symptoms to exclude potential LPR patients. Substantial heterogeneity across studies was noted, including impedance/pH sensor placements/configurations and definitions of composition (liquid, gas, mixed) and type (acid, weakly acid, nonacid) of PRE/HRE. The 95th percentile thresholds were 10 to 73 events for PRE, 0 to 10 events for HRE on HEMII-pH, and 40 to 128 for events with pH <6.0 on oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Most HREs were nonacid and occurred upright. The mean HRE among healthy individuals was 1. CONCLUSION: The low number of studies and the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, definitions, and characterization of PRE and HRE limit the establishment of consensual normative criteria for LPR on ambulatory reflux monitoring. Future large multicenter studies are needed.

Efficacy of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Across the Spectrum of GERD Disease Severity.

BACKGROUND: The performance and durability of various types of fundoplication are variable when stratified by disease severity. To date, magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has not been evaluated in this context. We designed this study to determine the efficacy of MSA in the treatment of severe GERD. STUDY DESIGN: Guided by previous studies, a DeMeester score (DMS) ≥ 50 was used as a cutoff point to define severe reflux disease. Subjects were divided into 2 groups using this cutoff, and outcomes of severe cases were compared with those with less severe disease (DMS < 50). RESULTS: A total of 334 patients underwent MSA. Patients with severe disease had a higher mean preoperative DMS compared with those with mild to moderate GERD (79.2 [53.2] vs 22.8 [13.7], p < 0.0001). At a mean postoperative follow-up of 13.6 (10.4) months, there was no difference between the mean GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) total scores in patients with severe disease compared with those with less severe GERD (8.8 [10] vs 9.2 [10.8], p = 0.9204). Postoperative mean DMS was not different between groups (17.3[23.0] vs 14.1[33.9], p = 0.71), and there was no difference in the prevalence of esophagitis (p = 0.52). Patients with severe disease were less likely to be free from use of proton pump inhibitors after surgery (85% vs 93.1%, p = 0.041). There were similar rates of postoperative dysphagia (10% vs 14%, p = 0.42) and need for device removal (3% vs 5%, p = 0.7463). CONCLUSIONS: MSA is an effective treatment in patients with severe GERD and leads to significant clinical improvement across the spectrum of disease severity, with few objective outcomes being superior in patients with mild-to-moderate reflux disease.

"Gas" laryngopharyngeal reflux cause unexplained chronic cough.

Hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance (HMII) that can measure laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) events has supported the causal relationship between chronic cough (CC) and LPR containing liquid. However the role of "gas" LPR associated with CC has been poorly understood. We present two cases of patients with CC who had negative LPR containing liquid but had multiple episodes of "gas" LPR on HMII. The majority of "gas" LPR events had a minor pH drop at hypopharynx. Since any etiology of CC was excluded and medical therapy failed, both patients underwent laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS). Both of the patients had complete resolution of cough postoperatively. The present cases demonstrated successful outcome of LARS to treat the patients with CC who had documented "gas" LPR on HMII, thus suggesting the causal relationship between CC and "gas" LPR. The number of "gas" LPR events may need to be considered as an important diagnostic parameter.

Development of pseudoachalasia following magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) with restoration of peristalsis after endoscopic dilation.

Pseudoachalasia is mimicking clinical and physiologic manifestations of idiopathic achalasia but results from alternative etiologies that infiltrate or obstruct the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). Anti-reflux surgery is one of the potential etiologies of pseudoachalasia. The majority of cases with persistent dysphagia after a tightly constructed Nissen fundoplication results from EGJ outlet obstruction (EGJOO) and in rare cases progresses to pseudoachalasia. In these extreme cases, endoscopic dilation is not a sufficient treatment and take down of fundoplication would be necessary. In this case report, we present a patient with long-standing GERD symptoms that underwent magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) with complete resolution of his reflux symptoms. He did not have dysphagia prior to surgery and his preoperative manometry showed normal peristaltic progression of esophageal contractions. He developed pseudoachalasia 14 months after surgery. Repeated endoscopic dilation in this case resulted in resolution of dysphagia and complete restoration of peristaltic contractions.

Clinical Outcomes and Predictors of Favorable Result after Laparoscopic Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation: Single-Institution Experience with More than 500 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a promising surgical treatment for patients with GERD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of MSA in a large cohort of patients with GERD and to determine the factors predicting a favorable outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of 553 patients who underwent MSA at our institution in a 5-year period. Preoperative clinical, endoscopic, manometric, and pH data were used in a univariate analysis. This was followed by a regression multivariable analysis to determine the factors predicting a favorable outcome. Favorable outcome was defined as freedom from proton pump inhibitors and ≥50% improvement in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) total score. RESULTS: At a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.3 (10.6) months after MSA, 92.7% of the patients were free of proton pump inhibitor use and 84% reported at least 50% improvement in their GERD-HRQL total score. The GERD-HRQL total score was improved from a mean (SD) baseline value of 33.8 (18.7) to 7.2 (9.0) (p < 0.001) and 76.1% of the patients had normalization of their esophageal acid exposure. Independent predictors of a favorable outcome after MSA included age younger than 45 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 15.2; p = 0.0305), male sex (OR 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.7; p = 0.0301), GERD-HRQL total score >15 (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.3 to 16.8; p < 0.0001), and abnormal DeMeester score (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.7; p = 0.0225). CONCLUSIONS: In this largest single-institution series, we demonstrate that MSA implantation is associated with very good clinical and objective outcomes. Age younger than 45 years, male sex, GERD-HRQL total score >15, and abnormal DeMeester score are the 4 preoperative factors predicting a favorable outcome and can be used in patient counseling and MSA use.

Clinical utility of salivary pepsin measurement in patients with proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: a prospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Salivary pepsin measurement has been reported to be useful for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of salivary pepsin measurement in patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory GERD symptoms without erosive esophagitis. METHODS: One hundred and two patients were included. Over seven days after terminating PPI treatment, all patients underwent a 24-h pH-impedance test and salivary pepsin measurement. In patients whose main symptoms included laryngopharyngeal symptoms, a hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance (HMII) test was performed, whereas in other patients, a conventional combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) test was performed. In the HMII tests, patients were divided into abnormal proximal exposure (APE) and non-APE groups. Salivary pepsin concentrations were compared according to acid exposure time (AET) values and were also compared between the APE and non-APE groups. RESULTS: The median salivary pepsin concentration in patients with AET > 6% was significantly higher than that in patients with AET ≤ 6% (345.0 [170.0-469.3] ng/mL vs. 120.0 [97.0-290.1] ng/mL, p < 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of a positive test (> 109 ng/mL) to diagnose patients with AET > 6% were 75.0%, 51.3%, 32.1%, and 86.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference between concentrations in the APE group and concentrations in the non-APE group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PPI-refractory nonerosive reflux disease, salivary pepsin measurement may help diagnose patients who have conclusive evidence of reflux, whereas it is not adequate for identifying patients with APE.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in patients with hiatal hernia: clinical outcome and patterns of recurrence.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an effective treatment for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. In early studies, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH) ≥ 3 cm were excluded from consideration for implantation and initially the FDA considered its use as "precautionary" in this context. This early approach has led to an attitude of hesitance among some surgeons to offer this therapy to patients with HH. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of HH status on the outcome of MSA and to report the rate of HH recurrence after MSA. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MSA between June 2013 and August 2017. Baseline clinical and objective data were collected. Patients were divided into four groups based on HH status: no HH, small HH (< 3 cm), large HH (≥ 3 cm), and paraesophageal hernia (PEH). Patient satisfaction, GERD-HRQL and RSI data, freedom from PPI, need for postoperative dilation, length of hospitalization, 90-day readmission rate, need for device removal, and HH recurrence was compared between groups. RESULTS: There were 350 patients [60% female, mean (SD) age: 53.5 (13.8)] who underwent MSA. There were 65 (18.6%) with no HH, 205 (58.6%) with small HH (< 3 cm), 58 (16.6%) with large HH (≥ 3 cm) and 22 (6.2%) with PEH. At a mean follow-up of 13.6 (10.4) months, the rate of outcome satisfaction was similar between the groups (86%, 87.9%, 92.2% and 93.8%, p = 0.72). This was also true for GERD-HRQL total score clinical improvement (79.1%, 77.8%, 82% and 87.5%, p = 0.77). The rate of postoperative dysphagia (p = 0.33) and freedom from PPIs (p = 0.96) were similar among the four groups. Duration of hospitalization was higher among those with a large HH or PEH, and only PEH patients had a higher 90-day readmission rate (p = 0.0004). There was no difference between the need for dilation among groups (p = 0.13). The need for device removal (5% overall) was similar between the four groups (p = 0.28). HH recurrence was 10% in all groups combined, and only 7 of 240 (2.9%) patients required reoperation; the majority of these patients underwent a minimal dissection approach (no hernia repair) at the index operation. The incidence of recurrent HH increased in direct correlation with the preoperative HH size (0%, 10.1%, 16.6 and 20%, p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: In the largest series of MSA implantation, we demonstrate that the excellent outcomes and high degree of satisfaction after MSA are independent of the presence or size of HH. Despite higher rates of hernia recurrence in large HH and PEH patients, the rates of postoperative endoscopic intervention, and device removal is similar to those with no or small HH. The minimal dissection approach to MSA should be abandoned.

Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation and Postoperative Dysphagia: Characterization, Clinical Risk Factors, and Management.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) results in less severe side effects compared with Nissen fundoplication, but dysphagia remains the most common side effect reported by patients after MSA. This study aimed to characterize and review the management of postoperative dysphagia and identify the preoperative factors that predict persistent dysphagia after MSA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MSA between 2013 and 2018. Preoperative objective evaluation included upper endoscopy, esophagram, high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM), and esophageal pH testing. Postoperative persistent dysphagia was defined as a postoperative score of > 3 for the dysphagia-specific item within the GERD-HRQL at a minimum of 3 months following MSA. A timeline of dysphagia and dilation rates was constructed and correlated with the evolution of our patient management practices and modifications in surgical technique. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients underwent MSA, at a mean (SD) follow up of 11.5 (8.7) months, 59 (15.5%) patients were experiencing persistent dysphagia. Thirty-one percent of patients required at least one dilation for dysphagia or chest pain and the overall response rate to this procedure was 67%, 7 (1.8%) patients required device removal specifically for dysphagia. Independent predictors of persistent dysphagia based on logistic regression model included (1) absence of a large hernia (OR 2.86 (95% CI 1.08-7.57, p = 0.035)); (2) the presence of preoperative dysphagia (OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.05-4.58, p = 0.037)); and (3) having less than 80% peristaltic contractions on HRIM (OR 2.50 (95% CI 1.09-5.73, p = 0.031)). Graded cutoffs of distal contractile integral (DCI), mean wave amplitude, DeMeester score, sex, and body mass index were evaluated within the model and did not predict postoperative dysphagia. Frequent eating after surgery, avoidance of early dilation, and increase in the size of the LINX device selected decreased the need for dilation. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients who underwent MSA, we report 15.5% rate of persistent postoperative dysphagia. The overall response rate to dilation therapy is 67%, and the efficacy of dilation with each subsequent procedure reduces. Patients with normal hiatal anatomy, significant preoperative dysphagia, and less than 80% peristaltic contractions of the smooth muscle portion of the esophagus should be counseled that they have an increased risk for persistent postoperative dysphagia.

Comparison of surgical payer costs and implication on the healthcare expenses between laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in a large healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a promising antireflux surgical treatment. The cost associated with the device may be perceived as a drawback by payers, which may limit the adoption of this technique. There are limited data regarding the cost of MSA in the management of reflux disease. The aims of the study were to report the clinical outcome and quality of life measures in patients after MSA and to compare the pharmaceutical and procedure payer costs and the disease-related and overall expense of MSA compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) from a payer perspective. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This prospective observational study was performed in conjunction with the region's largest health insurance company. Data were collected on patients who underwent MSA over a 2-year period beginning in September 2015 at the study network hospitals. The LNF comparison group was procured from members' claims data of the payer. Inclusion was predicated by patients having continuous coverage during study period. The total procedural reimbursement and the disease-related and overall medical claims submitted up to 12 months prior to surgery and up to 12 months following surgery were obtained. The payer reimbursement data are presented as allowed cost per member per month (PMPM). These values were then compared between groups. RESULTS: There were 195 patients who underwent MSA and 1131 that had LNF. MSA results in comparable symptom control, PPI elimination rate, and quality of life measures compared to values reported for LNF in the literature. The median (IQR) reimbursement of surgery was $13,522 (13,195-14,439) for those who underwent MSA and $13,388 (9951-16,261) for patients with LNF, p = 0.02. In patients who underwent MSA, the median reimbursement related to the upper gastrointestinal disease was $ 305 PMPM, at 12 months prior to surgery and $ 104 at 12 months after surgery, representing 66% decrease in cost. These values were $ 233 PMPM and $126 PMPM for patients who underwent LNF, representing a 46% decrease (p = 0.0001). At 12 months following surgery, the reimbursement for overall medical expenses had decreased by 10.7% in the MSA group and 1.4% in the LNF group when compared to the preoperative baseline reimbursement. The reimbursement for PPI use after surgery showed a 95% decrease in the MSA group and 90% among LNF group when compared to the preoperative baseline (p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: When compared with LNF, MSA results in a reduction of disease-related expenses for the payer in the year following surgery. While MSA is associated with a higher procedural payer cost compared to LNF, payer costs may offset due to reduction in the expenses after surgery.

Sep70/Pepsin expression in hypopharynx combined with hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance increases diagnostic sensitivity of laryngopharyngeal reflux.

BACKGROUND: Improved methods of diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) would enable surgeons to better identify patients who may benefit from antireflux surgery (ARS). The objective of the present study was to assess if hypopharyngeal Pepsin and Sep70 expression combined with hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance (HMII) has the potential to increase diagnostic sensitivity of LPR. METHODS: This study was performed on patients who underwent unsedated transnasal endoscopy with hypopharyngeal biopsy and 24-h HMII to determine abnormal proximal exposure (APE) and DeMeester score (DMS) from 2013 to 2016. Pepsin and Sep70 protein expression was assessed by Western blots of biopsy specimens. The outcomes of ARS were assessed using reflux symptom index (RSI). HMII APE classification, Sep 70, and Pepsin protein levels were compared in normative and symptomatic LPR patients and further analyzed alongside quality of life changes following ARS. RESULTS: Of 30 subjects enrolled, 23 were excluded for abnormal HMII results or endoscopic evidence of esophagitis. Seven subjects and 105 patients were included in the normative and symptomatic groups, respectively. Compared to the normative group, only Pepsin expression was significantly higher in the symptomatic group [APE+/LPR+ (p = 0.000), APE+/LPR- (p = 0.001), and APE- (p = 0.047)]. Further, the ratio of Sep70/Pepsin was significantly lower in the symptomatic group [APE+/LPR+ (p = 0.008), APE+/LPR- (p = 0.000), and APE- (p = 0.050)], and a cutoff ratio for a diagnosis of LPR was established as < 158. Of 105 symptomatic patients, 48 patients underwent ARS. Of these, 17 patients had complete pre- and post-RSI questionnaires. LPR symptoms improved in 15 (88%), of whom 2 were APE- but met criteria for a diagnosis of LPR based on the Sep70/Pepsin cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: The identified Sep70/Pepsin ratio may serve as a reliable biomarker for the diagnosis of LPR. As a result, this may help identify additional patients who have a false-negative HMII result due to the 24-h testing window.

Hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance leads to the promising outcome of antireflux surgery in Japanese population with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Clinical characteristics of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in Japanese population remain unclear, and its treatment outcome is suboptimal. The objectives of this study were to evaluate Japanese patients with LPR symptoms using hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance (HMII) and to assess the outcome of antireflux surgery (ARS). METHODS: Subjects included patients who had LPR symptoms for > 12 weeks or laryngoscopic findings suggestive of LPR and underwent laryngoscopy and esophageal testing including HMII. Abnormal proximal exposure (APE) was defined as LPR ≥ 1/day and/or full column reflux (FCR) (reflux 2 cm distal to the upper esophageal sphincter) ≥ 5/day on HMII. Patients with APE were offered ARS and the outcome of ARS was objectively assessed using Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). RESULTS: From July 2015 to September 2016, 52 patients with LPR symptoms (28 men, 24 women, median BMI 22.3) underwent HMII, and 38 patients (73%) had APE. Of them, 29 (76%) patients were not obese (BMI < 25) and 19 (50%) patients had a negative DeMeester score. Approximately one-third of LPR and FCR events were non-acid in the distal esophagus. A positive symptom-association probability was seen only in 18 patients (35%). Mild esophagitis and hiatal hernia were found in 5 (10%) and 23 (48%) patients, respectively. All 12 patients (100%) who had undergone ARS were able to discontinue PPI and had a significant improvement in the RSI scores postoperatively (22.9 ± 10.0 vs. 6.8 ± 6.8, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: APE was frequently observed in Japanese patients with LPR symptoms. Obesity and esophagitis were uncommon in this population. Since a large number of patients with APE had negative DeMeester score and proximal reflux events were often non-acid, a conventional pH monitoring is insufficient. HMII is crucial to evaluate patients with LPR symptoms as the documentation of APE is a key for successful outcome of ARS.

Primary tumor microRNA signature predicts recurrence and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is an aggressive cancer necessitating the development of improved risk stratification tools for personalized care. Previously, microRNAs have been shown to correlate with the progression and prognosis of various cancer types; however, the value in EAC remains largely unexplored. We performed global microRNA profiling on 32 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded EAC specimens to identify microRNAs associated with progression. Literature search and pathway analysis further refined output to five significantly deregulated candidate biomarkers. Four of the five microRNAs (miR-652-5p, miR-7-2-3p, miR-3925-3p, and miR-219-3p) were validated by qRT-PCR. Survival outcomes were evaluated in testing set of 26 stage II/III EAC patients to determine the prognostic relevance of the selected microRNAs. In the testing set, miR-652-5p and miR-7-2-3p expressions were significantly associated with progression-free survival (p-value = .00771 and p-value = .00293). The highest area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.8212 for the combination of miR-652-5p and miR-7-2-3p. Collectively, our findings demonstrated that the miR-652-5p/miR-7-2-3p signature may serve as a promising prognostic marker in patients with locally advanced EAC.

A utility of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) across the spectrum of esophageal motility disorders.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been performed as a novel endoscopic procedure to treat achalasia with favorable outcome. The objective of this study was to assess the outcome of POEM in our initial series and to assess the safety and efficacy of POEM in a variety of esophageal motility-related clinical problems. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study involving all patients with esophageal motility disorders defined by the Chicago classification, who had undergone consideration for POEM at our institution. Validated questionnaires such as gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL), reflux symptom index (RSI) and achalasia disease-specific health-related quality of life were obtained pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: From January 2013 to October 2014, a total of 35 POEMs (achalasia n = 25, non-achalasia n = 10) were performed on 33 patients (female n = 20, male n = 13, mean age 56.9 years). There was no mortality. The rate of inadvertent mucosotomy was 17.1%. The rate of complications requiring interventions was 5.7%. During a mean follow-up period of 7 months (range 0.5-17), 92% of patients with achalasia and 75% of those with non-achalasia motility disorders had a symptomatic improvement in dysphagia. Chest pain was completely resolved in all patients with achalasia (8/8) and 80% of patients with non-achalasia (4/5). The GERD-HRQL, RSI and dysphagia scores significantly improved after POEM in patients with achalasia. There was a significant improvement in GERD-HRQL and RSI scores, and a trend toward lower dysphagia score in patients with non-achalasia. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of POEM to treat achalasia and non-achalasia motility disorders is consistent with previous studies. Potential benefit of POEM includes not only its flexibility to adjust the length and location of myotomy but also the ability to extend myotomy proximally without thoracoscopy or thoracotomy. POEM can be combined with laparoscopic procedures and used as "salvage" for localized esophageal dysmotility.