Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
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
  1. Radu-Ionut Rusu1,
  2. Mark R Fox2,3,
  3. Emily Tucker3,4,
  4. Sebastian Zeki1,
  5. Jason M Dunn1,
  6. Jafar Jafari1,
  7. Fiona Warburton5,
  8. Terry Wong1
  1. 1 Oesophageal Physiology Laboratory, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  2. 2 Digestive Function: Basel, Laboratory and Clinic for Motility Disorders and Functional Digestive Diseases, Center for Integrative Gastroenterology, Klinik Arlesheim, Arlesheim, Switzerland
  3. 3 NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  4. 4 Royal Derby Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
  5. 5 Oral Clinical Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Terry Wong, Oesophageal Physiology Laboratory, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 9RT, UK; terry.wong{at}gstt.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objective Acid exposure time (AET) from ambulatory pH studies and reflux oesophagitis are independent measurements used by the Lyon classification to diagnose GORD. This study aimed to validate AET reference ranges and diagnostic thresholds by analysis of 96-hour wireless pH studies from healthy, asymptomatic controls (HCs) and patients with and without oesophagitis.

Design HC and consecutive patients referred for wireless pH studies (off acid suppressants for >7 days) underwent 96-hour pH studies at two tertiary referral centres. Erosive oesophagitis was categorised by the Los Angeles (LA) classification. Linear regression and receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis were performed to define optimal diagnostic cut-offs.

Results Prolonged, 96-hour pH studies were completed in 39 HCs (age 28 (18–53) years, 72% female) and 944 patients (age 46 (16–85) years, 65% female), of whom 136 (14.5%) had reflux oesophagitis. Median AET in HC was 1.3% (upper 95th percentile 4.6%) for any study day and 2.6% (upper 95th percentile 6.9%) for the worst day (24-hour period) during the study. ROC analysis for average AET differentiated HC from patients with moderate-to-severe oesophagitis (LA BCD; sensitivity 87%, specificity 95%, positive predictive value (PPV) 59%, negative predictive value 99% for a cut-off AET of 4.3%; area under the receiver operating curve 0.95). Specificity was higher, but PPV was substantially lower for severe oesophagitis (LA CD). ‘Worst-day’ analysis provided similar results; however, day-to-day variability was high.

Conclusion Diagnostic thresholds for average AET were identified that accurately discriminate between HCs and patients with erosive oesophagitis. The findings provide conditional support for diagnostic criteria for GORD proposed by the Lyon Consensus.

  • pH monitoring
  • erosive oesophagitis
  • gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Available on reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Available on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @SebastianZeki

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The author affiliations have been updated and a duplicated reference removed.

  • Contributors Study design/conception: R-IR, MRF, TW. Acquisition of data: R-IR, MRF, ET, SZ, JMD, TW. Analysis of data: R-IR, MF, ET, FW, TW. Interpretation of data: R-IR, MRF, ET, FW TW. Drafting of the manuscript: R-IR, TW. Critical revision of the manuscript: R-IR, MRF, SZ, JMD, JJ, FW, TW. Final approval of the manuscript to be published: R-IR, MRF, ET, SZ, JMD, JJ, FW, TW.

  • Funding This study was funded by institutional research funds from Guy's and St Thomas' Charity, SPF872 and supported by grants and catheter-free pH monitoring equipment from Given Imaging/Covidien AG, now subsidiaries of Medtronic plc. Medtronic was not involved in discussions of the study design and did not contribute to the drafting of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests MRF has received research and/or educational funding from Medtronic, MMS/Laborie, Sandhill Scientific/Diversatek and Reckitt Benckiser. R-IR, ET, SZ, JMD, JJ, FW, TW: None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles