NOME E NUMERO DEL PROVIDER: I&C SRL - 7598ECM N°: 11005555 TITOLO: XIV CONGRESSO NAZIONALE GISMAD SEDE: VENEZIA-MESTRE DATA: 18-19 MARZO 2011 Il sottoscritto EDOARDO SAVARINO in qualità di docente dell’evento sopra indicato, ai sensi dell’art. 3.3 sul Conflitto di Interessi, pag. 17 del Reg. Applicativo dell’Accordo Stato-Regioni del 5/11/09, per conto del provider I&C srl dichiara che negli ultimi due anni non ha avuto rapporti con soggetti portatori di interessi commerciali in campo sanitario Impatto delle Tecnologie sulla gestione clinica: pH e Manometry-Impedance Dott. Edoardo V. Savarino Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, Clinica di Gastroenterologia con Endoscopia Digestiva, Università di Genova (Resp. Prof. V. Savarino) Combined impedance-manometry 20cm 20cm 15cm 15cm 10cm 10cm 5cm 5cm LES NEW TECHNOLOGIES 17 cm 15 cm 6 impedance channels Esophageal pH monitoring without catheter 9 cm 1 pH channel 7 cm 5 cm 3 cm pH - 5 cm Impedance Monitoring Kahrilas PJ. Impedance Monitoring: When? ► Evaluation of patients with difficult symptoms Non-Cardiac Chest Pain – Disphagia – Globus ► Evaluation of symptomatic patients despite PPI therapy Efficacy of Medical Therapy – Correlate Acid & Non-Acid GER to Sx – Absence of abnormal GER ► Evaluation of atypical GERD (Correlate acid & nonacid GER episodes to Sx and quantify proximal extent of GER) Cough – Asthma – Laryngitis – Hoarseness – Bronchitis - Dysfonia – Interstitial Lung Disease ► Pre and Post-operative evaluation of patients considered for surgery Pathological acid exposure – Symptom-reflux Association – Efficacy of surgery ► Evaluation of GERD in infants and pediatric patients Pathological non-acid exposure – Nocturnal apnea ► Evaluation of new medical or endoscopic therapies for GERD (Baclofen, Esophyx, Arbaclofen, Lesogaberan etc.) Main Diagnostic Advantage Does patient have a reflux disease? MII-pH Impedance Monitoring In case of normal acid exposure Positive Symptom Association Negative Symptom Association Identify Non-Acid Reflux Disease Identify Functional Diseases or search for other causes Clinical Utility of Impedance-pH in NERD patients NERD Patients (N = 150) Normal Acid Exposure Time 87 (58%) Abnormal Acid Exposure Time 63 (42%) Positive SI 54 (36%) Negative SI 9 (6%) Acid Only 48 (32%) Acid and Nonacid 4 (3%) Total Acid 52 (35%) Positive SI 45 (30%) Negative SI 42 (28%) Nonacid Only 2 (1%) Functional Heartburn 42 (28%) Total Nonacid 6 (4%) Acid Only 20 (13%) Acid and Nonacid 7 (5%) Total Acid 27 (18%) Nonacid Only 18 (12%) Total Nonacid 25 (17%) Savarino E et al. Am J Gastroenterology 2008;103:1-9 The Added Value of Impedance-pH to Rome III Criteria in NERD patients (N=219) 50% 45% % of patients 40% 38% 39% 35% 31% 30% 25% 20% 28% 29% 28% 3% 10% NARD 15% 10% 5% 5% 2% 0% NERD pH+/SAP+ NERD pH+/SAPRome III Criteria HE FH MII-pH/SAP Results Savarino E et al. Dig Liv Dis 2011; March 2 Rome Criteria 3 ½ Kahrilas PJ et al. Am J Gastroenterology 2010;747:756 Clinical Utility of Impedance-pH in EE patients EE Patients (N = 58) Normal Acid Exposure Time 11 (19%) Abnormal Acid Exposure Time 47 (81%) Positive SAP 44 (76%) Negative SAP 3 (5%) Acid Only 35 (60%) Acid and Nonacid 5 (9%) Total Acid 40 (69%) Positive SAP 10 (17%) Negative SAP 1 (2%) Nonacid Only 4 (7%) Total Nonacid 9 (16%) Acid Only 3 (5%) Acid and Nonacid 3 (5%) Total Acid 6 (10%) Nonacid Only 4 (7%) Total Nonacid 7 (12%) Savarino E et al. Am J Gastroenterology 2010; 105:1053-61 Clinical Utility of Impedance-pH in EE patients Frazzoni M et al. APT 2011; 33:601-606 Impedance-pH and overlap syndromes Savarino E et al. Gut 2009; 58:1185-1191 Impedance-pH and overlap syndromes NERDNERD pH-POS/SAP- NERD pH-POS/SAP+ NERD 70 NERD pH-NEG/SAP + HE NERD pH-NEG/SAP FH * 61 * 60 % of patients * 54 * = p <0.01 50 50 50 * 41 40 40 35 34 29 30 30 28 26 40 28 34 30 23 20 20 22 20 18 15 20 18 14 10 10 20 10 11 10 7 8 0 Postprandial Early Satiety Fullness Bloating Nausea Belching Epigastric Pain Epigastric Burning Vomiting Savarino E et al. Gut 2009; 58:1185-1191 Impedance-pH and new drugs *p<0.05 * * * * Impedance-pH and new drugs Impedance-pH and surgery Impedance-pH and surgery Patients selection: 15 had erosive esophagitis 16 had non-erosive reflux disease Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication ↓ Number of total, acid and weakly acidic reflux episodes ↓ Acid exposure time, liquid and mixed reflux events ↓ Gatric belching, but ↑ Supragastric belching 16 Patients were asymptomatic 15 Patients were symptomatic, but with negative SI for acid or weakly acidic reflux Impedance-pH and surgery No symptom was registered during the study performed after intervention 38 were totally asymptomatic Subtotal symptom remission was reported by two patients, one with a postoperative heartburn score of 1 (3 before intervention) and one with a post-operative regurgitation score of 1 (3 before intervention) Impedance-pH: On or Off-PPI Therapy? Twice-daily PPI Therapy for at least 2 months Impedance-pH Testing On Therapy Impedance-pH: On or Off-PPI Therapy? N=30 Hemmink et al. Am J Gastroenterology 2008; 103:2446-53 Impedance-pH: On or Off-PPI Therapy? Impedance Impedance-pH as the gold standard to test if the patient has or not GERD in the first place Impedance-pH as the gold standard to clarify the relationship between symptoms and reflux Off Therapy On Therapy History of Erosive esophagitis or Barrett Esophagus Previous positive conventional pH monitoring Modified by Tutuian R. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2009; 1:9-10 Definition of Motility Abnormalities Esophageal body LES resting pressure LES residual pressure 100% aperistalsis elevated / normal elevated / normal IEM >30% ineffective contractions normal / low normal DES >20% simultaneous swallows normal / elevated normal < 30% ineffective < 20% simultaneous normal normal normal; DEA >180mmHg normal / elevated normal / elevated Hypertensive LES normal > 45 mmHg elevated / normal Poorly relaxing LES normal normal > 8 mmHg Hypotensive LES normal < 10 mmHg normal Achalasia Normal Nutcracker IEM – ineffective esophageal motility DES – distal esophageal spasm LES – lower esophageal sphincter Spechler & Castell. Gut 2001; 49:145-51 Meaning of esophageal motility abnormalities ? Esophageal Function Testing Combined Impedance-Manometry Comprehensively Assesses Esophageal Function Motility Assessment Criteria Pressure Measurements Esophageal Body Contraction Amplitude Bolus Transit Measurements LES Resting Pressure Complete Esophageal Body Contraction Velocity LES Residual Pressure Incomplete Impedance-Manometry Testing 20cm 20cm 15cm 15cm 10cm 10cm 5cm 5cm LES Video-fluoro vs. Impedance r = 0.94 Simren et al. Gut 2003; 52:784-790 Bolus Transit Complete bolus transit 20 cm 15 cm 10 cm 5 cm 2 cm Bolus retention at 15cm Patients with esophageal motility abnormalities 350 patients Females 220 (63%), males 130 (37%) Age: mean 53.5 years, range 12-86 years Tutuian R et al. Am J Gastroenterology 2004; 99:1011-9 Percentage of Patients with normal bolus transit for liquid based on manometric diagnosis (n=350) Tutuian R et al. Am J Gastroenterology 2004; 99:1011-9 Impedance-manometry classification of motility abnormalities Pressure and Transit Pressure only Hypertensive LES Achalasia Scleroderma Hypotensive LES IEM Poor relaxing LES DES Nutcracker Mild Moderate Severe Tutuian R et al. Am J Gastroenterology 2004; 99:1011-9 Frequency of bolus retention at different levels in the esophagus (n=67 patients) (Bread) Chest-pain Dysphagia 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30%40% 40% 30% 20% 10% p<0.05 at each level GERD 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 20 15 10 5 2 % swallows with bolus retention DDW 2007, Washington, USA Manometric Findings in 755 GERD Patients and 48 HVs FISMAD 2011, Torino, Italy AUMENTO N=48 N=70 N=239 Simile prevalenza di IEM tra HV e FH N=340 N=106 DELL’INCIDENZA DI IEM CON L’AUMENTARE DELLA SEVERITA’ DELLE LESIONI Bolus Transit for Liquid Swallows in GERD Patients Valori simili tra FH e NERD Bolus Transit alterato in Pazienti con lesioni visibili endoscopicamente FISMAD 2011, Torino, Italy Manometric Diagnosis with Bolus Transit in GERD Patients Conventional Manometry Combined Impedance Manometry 90% 80% Patients (%) 70% 22% 60% 21% 50% 40% 0% 30% 20% 36% 4% 52% 56% EE (N=65) BARRETT (N=34) 31% 10% 0% FH (N=39) NERD (N=122) FISMAD 2011, Torino, Italy Future Issues to be Elucidated The impact of Bolus Transit assessment in patients undergoing esophageal surgery (Fundoplication, Heller Miotomy, Trans-oral esophageal diverticulectomy etc.) The diagnostic utility of Bolus Transit assessment in patients with non-obstructive dysphagia (functional dysphagia etc.) The impact of Bolus Transit assessment in studies aimed at testing future drugs for improving gastro-esophageal emptying (Bolus transit time)