Objective To validate Lyon Consensus criteria for diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) by reflux monitoring.
Design Manual review of impedance-pH tracings from patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-dependent heartburn, evaluated off PPI. Acid exposure time (AET) thresholds defined by the Lyon Consensus and impedance parameters were investigated, namely, total refluxes (TRs), postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI).
Results The study included 488 patients, 178 (36%) with normal (<4%) AET, 89 (18%) with inconclusive (4%–6%) AET and 221 (45%) with abnormal (>6%) AET, alongside with 70 healthy controls. At receiver operating characteristic analysis, area under curve was 0.89, 0.95 and 0.89 for TRs, PSPW index and MNBI, respectively, and threshold values were 40, 50% and 2000 Ω; the 4% physiological AET threshold defined by the Lyon Consensus showed 100% specificity but 63% sensitivity. The thresholds defined for impedance parameters were validated against AET by means of ordered logistic regression, being in concordance with the 4% AET threshold (OR 2.5 for TRs, 18.9 for PSPW index and 5.7 for MNBI). TRs positivity and concordant PSPW index/MNBI positivity were found in 80%–90% of patients in the abnormal AET group, in 73%–74% of cases in the inconclusive AET group and in 28%–40% of cases in the group with normal AET.
Conclusions Our results show the overall validity of the Lyon Consensus approach to GORD diagnosis. Adding evaluation of impedance parameters, namely, TRs, PSPW index and MNBI to AET appraisal, substantially improves the diagnostic yield of reflux monitoring.
- acid-related diseases
- oesophageal ph monitoring
- gastroesophageal reflux disease
Data availability statement
Data supporting the study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors LF: study concept and design; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript. MF: study concept and design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript. NDB, MR, ES: study concept; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; critical revision of the manuscript. ST, SR, RLC: collection, analysis and interpretation of data; critical revision of the manuscript. RP, LF, RMZ: study concept; analysis and interpretation of data; critical revision of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.