Background and Aims
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords
Abbreviations used in this paper:
DBI (distal baseline impedance), I-GERQ-R (Infant Gastroesophageal Reflux Questionnaire Revised), GER (gastroesophageal reflux disease), GERD (GER disease), NICU (neonatal intensive care unit), NPV (negative predictive value), PPI (proton pump inhibitor), PPV (positive predictive value), SAP (symptom association probability)Introduction
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
Symptom-Based Questionnaires and pH-Impedance Testing
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
Current Management Therapies
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
Rationale, Aims, and Hypothesis
Methods
Study Design, Participants, and Setting
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.

Experimental Protocol
Measuring Symptom Burden Using I-GERQ-R
Twenty Four–Hour pH-Impedance Testing
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
GERD Interventions
Data Analysis
pH-Impedance Metrics (All Data Excluded Mealtimes)
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
Statistical Analysis
- Rosen R.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Singendonk M.
- et al.
Results
Participant Characteristics
Characteristic | Overall N = 94 | ARI <3% N = 22 | ARI 3%–7% N = 25 | ARI >7% N = 47 | ANOVA P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
At birth | |||||
Gestational age, wk | 30.5 ± 4.1 | 31.9 ± 3.6 | 31.3 ± 4.1 | 29.4 ± 4.1 | .03 |
Weight, kg | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 1.8 ± 0.9 | 1.8 ± 1.0 | 1.4 ± 1.0 | .11 |
Length, cm | 40.0 ± 6.7 | 41.7 ± 7 | 41.9 ± 6.4 | 38.3 ± 6.4 | .03 |
Gender (female), % | 51 | 64 | 52 | 45 | .34 |
Race, % | .11 | ||||
African American or Black | 18 | 27 | 8 | 19 | |
Other/Unknown | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
White | 74 | 73 | 92 | 66 | |
Ethnicity (non-Hispanic or Latino), % | 96 | 100 | 96 | 94 | .93 |
At evaluation | |||||
Postmenstrual age, wk | 40.9 ± 2.5 | 40.4 ± 2.3 | 40.9 ± 2.5 | 41.1 ± 2.5 | .99 |
Weight, kg | 3.5 ± 0.9 | 3.3 ± 1.1 | 3.7 ± 0.6 | 3.4 ± 0.9 | .31 |
Length, cm | 49.2 ± 3.6 | 48.6 ± 4.0 | 50.6 ± 2.7 | 48.7 ± 3.8 | .08 |
Respiratory support (nasal cannula oxygen), % | 28 | 14 | 16 | 40 | .02 |
Feeding method (oral: oral + gavage: Gavage), % | 51: 47: 2 | 64: 36: 0 | 40: 60: 0 | 51: 45: 4 | .39 |
Mild neuropathology, % | 23 | 5 | 32 | 28 | .04 |
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, % | 40 | 55 | 44 | 32 | .15 |
At discharge | |||||
Weight, kg | 4.2 ± 0.9 | 3.9 ± 0.9 | 4.3 ± 7.3 | 4.3 ± 1.0 | .21 |
Length, cm | 52.6 ± 3.9 | 51.2 ± 4.1 | 53.1 ± 3.4 | 52.9 ± 4.0 | .18 |
Respiratory support (nasal cannula oxygen), % | 19 | 9 | 4 | 32 | .01 |
Feeding method (oral: oral + gavage: Gavage), % | 77: 17: 6 | 82: 9: 9 | 76: 20: 4 | 75: 19: 6 | .82 |
Length of stay, d | 96.5 ± 45 | 70.3 ± 40.6 | 85.4 ± 40.4 | 114.1 ± 42.3, | < .01 |
Relationships Between I-GERQ-R and pH-Impedance Metrics
Survey question | ARI <3% N = 22 | ARI 3%–7% N = 25 | ARI >7% N = 47 | ANOVA P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
I-GERQ-R | ||||
1. Emesis occurrence | 1 [1–2] | 1 [1–1] | 1 [1–1] | .71 |
2. Emesis amount | 1 [1–2] | 1 [1–1] | 1 [1–2] | .32 |
3. Emesis tolerability | 2 [1–3] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–4] | .21 |
4. Feeding refusal occurrence | 0 [0–1] | 0 [0–2] | 1 [0–2] | .44 |
5. Stopped feeding shortly after begun | 2 [0–3] | 2 [0–3] | 2 [0–2] | .46 |
6. Crying during or after feeds | 1.5 [1–2] | 1 [1 –2] | 2 [1–2] | .82 |
7. Crying frequency | 1.5 [1–2] | 1 [0–1] | 1 [0–2] | .23 |
8. Crying duration | 1 [1–2] | 1 [1–1] | 1 [1–2] | .56 |
9. Hiccup frequency | 2 [1–3] | 2 [1–2] | 2 [1–3] | .84 |
10. Arching frequency | 3 [2–3] | 2 [2–3] | 3 [1–3] | .93 |
11. Stopped or struggled to breathe, n (%) | 10 (45%) | 6 (24%) | 22 (47%) | .15 |
12. Turned blue or purple, n (%) | 8 (36%) | 3 (12%) | 14 (30%) | .13 |
Composite score, score | 15 [13–19] | 16 [11–19] | 16 [12–21] | .44 |
Abnormal score (≥ 16), n (%) | 10 (45%) | 10 (40%) | 23 (49%) | .77 |
Additional questions | ||||
CPR or PPV provided in prior week, n (%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8%) | 2 (4%) | .40 |
Coughing before, during, or after feeds, n (%) | 9 (41%) | 12 (48%) | 26 (55%) | .52 |
Adequate weight gain, n (%) | 19 (86%) | 24 (96%) | 41 (87%) | .45 |

pH-impedance metric | I-GERQ-R question | Additional questions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Emesis frequency | 2. Emesis amount | 3. Emesis tolerability | 4. Feeding refusal occurrence | 5. Stopped feeding | 6. Crying feeds | 7. Crying frequency | 8. Crying duration | 9. Hiccups frequency | 10. Arching frequency | 11. Breathing | 12. Turned blue | CPR or PPV | Cough | Weight gain | ||||||||||||||||
rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | P value | rs | Pval | rs | P-val | rs | P-val | |
Acid reflux index, % | 0.04 | .67 | 0.13 | .20 | 0.20 | .06 | 0.15 | .16 | −0.04 | .71 | 0.07 | .50 | 0.01 | .95 | 0.06 | .58 | 0.00 | .97 | −0.07 | .52 | 0.06 | .57 | −0.03 | .74 | 0.02 | .84 | 0.10 | .34 | 0.05 | .66 |
Acid reflux events | 0.26 | .01 | 0.16 | .11 | 0.09 | .37 | 0.10 | .33 | 0.11 | .28 | −0.01 | .94 | −0.16 | .11 | −0.19 | .07 | 0.05 | .63 | 0.07 | .50 | −0.11 | .29 | −0.07 | .51 | −0.01 | .95 | 0.10 | .35 | −0.14 | .17 |
Longest acid reflux, min | 0.17 | .09 | 0.08 | .43 | 0.12 | .26 | 0.04 | .72 | −0.10 | .35 | 0.01 | .90 | −0.14 | .19 | −0.12 | .25 | 0.00 | .10 | 0.00 | .98 | −0.07 | .48 | −0.01 | .94 | 0.05 | .63 | 0.09 | .38 | −0.16 | .13 |
Bolus exposure time, % | 0.22 | .03 | 0.08 | .46 | 0.28 | .01 | −0.10 | .33 | −0.20 | .05 | 0.02 | .84 | 0.03 | .77 | −0.02 | .84 | 0.06 | .57 | 0.19 | .07 | 0.22 | .04 | 0.19 | .06 | 0.03 | .81 | 0.25 | .01 | 0.05 | .61 |
Bolus events | 0.28 | .01 | 0.17 | .10 | 0.26 | .01 | −0.09 | .36 | −0.22 | .04 | 0.05 | .64 | −0.01 | .95 | −0.08 | .45 | 0.06 | .55 | 0.15 | .16 | 0.19 | .07 | 0.05 | .66 | 0.07 | .49 | 0.21 | .04 | −0.02 | .85 |
Liquid events | 0.32 | .00 | 0.15 | .15 | 0.29 | .00 | −0.15 | .15 | −0.23 | .02 | 0.08 | .43 | 0.06 | .58 | 0.02 | .82 | 0.10 | .32 | 0.11 | .31 | 0.25 | .02 | 0.07 | .49 | 0.02 | .88 | 0.14 | .18 | 0.04 | .73 |
Mixed events | 0.18 | .08 | 0.01 | .96 | 0.17 | .09 | 0.03 | .80 | −0.06 | .54 | 0.10 | .35 | 0.08 | .44 | 0.05 | .63 | 0.06 | .55 | 0.06 | .60 | −0.05 | .60 | −0.03 | .80 | −0.15 | .15 | 0.06 | .54 | 0.04 | .72 |
Gas events | 0.07 | .52 | 0.14 | .19 | 0.04 | .69 | −0.05 | .65 | −0.03 | .80 | 0.06 | .59 | 0.07 | .53 | 0.11 | .31 | 0.07 | .50 | −0.06 | .57 | 0.05 | .64 | 0.04 | .70 | −0.09 | .41 | −0.05 | .61 | 0.10 | .36 |
Proximal acid events | 0.27 | .01 | 0.21 | .04 | 0.24 | .02 | 0.05 | .66 | −0.12 | .23 | 0.16 | .13 | −0.01 | .89 | 0.02 | .84 | −0.04 | .67 | 0.17 | .10 | 0.15 | .14 | 0.03 | .74 | 0.08 | .46 | 0.19 | .07 | −0.04 | .73 |
Proximal weakly acid events | 0.32 | .00 | 0.03 | .78 | 0.27 | .01 | −0.24 | .02 | −0.26 | .01 | 0.04 | .73 | −0.01 | .92 | 0.02 | .82 | 0.14 | .17 | 0.05 | .64 | 0.20 | .05 | 0.08 | .43 | 0.03 | .81 | 0.18 | .08 | −0.04 | .71 |
Distal acid events | 0.22 | .04 | 0.18 | .09 | 0.21 | .04 | 0.05 | .64 | −0.10 | .35 | 0.12 | .27 | 0.03 | .75 | 0.02 | .88 | −0.01 | .93 | 0.14 | .19 | 0.16 | .13 | 0.01 | .90 | 0.06 | .56 | 0.16 | .14 | −0.03 | .79 |
Distal weakly acid events | 0.28 | .01 | 0.05 | .66 | 0.24 | .02 | −0.21 | .04 | −0.23 | .02 | 0.02 | .82 | −0.01 | .96 | −0.03 | .76 | 0.15 | .15 | 0.02 | .88 | 0.21 | .04 | 0.04 | .73 | 0.00 | .97 | 0.16 | .12 | −0.04 | .73 |
Liquid acid events | 0.26 | .01 | 0.20 | .05 | 0.25 | .02 | −0.02 | .82 | −0.13 | .23 | 0.14 | .17 | 0.07 | .50 | 0.05 | .65 | 0.02 | .82 | 0.14 | .17 | 0.18 | .09 | 0.01 | .93 | 0.07 | .52 | 0.17 | .11 | −0.03 | .79 |
Liquid weakly acid events | 0.23 | .02 | 0.02 | .83 | 0.24 | .02 | −0.23 | .03 | −0.25 | .02 | 0.05 | .61 | 0.02 | .84 | 0.03 | .78 | 0.10 | .32 | 0.04 | .68 | 0.25 | .02 | 0.09 | .37 | 0.01 | .90 | 0.11 | .31 | 0.03 | .81 |
Mixed acid events | 0.07 | .52 | 0.15 | .16 | 0.14 | .19 | 0.14 | .19 | −0.02 | .87 | 0.14 | .19 | 0.02 | .82 | −0.07 | .50 | 0.14 | .17 | 0.07 | .48 | −0.21 | .04 | −0.06 | .57 | −0.08 | .47 | 0.14 | .19 | −0.07 | .53 |
Mixed weakly acid events | 0.23 | .02 | −0.08 | .45 | 0.17 | .10 | −0.06 | .57 | −0.08 | .46 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.05 | .62 | 0.08 | .47 | 0.02 | .88 | 0.02 | .82 | 0.05 | .65 | 0.01 | .91 | −0.15 | .16 | 0.02 | .82 | 0.07 | .53 |
DBI, Ω | −0.04 | .73 | −0.07 | .51 | −0.10 | .34 | 0.05 | .65 | 0.01 | .93 | 0.00 | 1.00 | −0.16 | .12 | −0.11 | .30 | −0.12 | .24 | −0.07 | .51 | −0.12 | .23 | −0.04 | .69 | 0.22 | .03 | 0.13 | .23 | −0.22 | .03 |
Symptoms | 0.06 | .55 | 0.07 | .48 | 0.01 | .95 | −0.03 | .77 | −0.02 | .82 | 0.15 | .15 | 0.17 | .10 | 0.10 | .35 | 0.07 | .52 | 0.22 | .03 | 0.11 | .28 | 0.21 | .04 | 0.09 | .38 | −0.13 | .21 | 0.06 | .54 |
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values
Abnormal threshold criteria | Sensitivity, % | Specificity, % | PPV, % | NPV, % |
---|---|---|---|---|
All subjects, N = 94 | ||||
Acid SAP ≥95% | 61 | 47 | 22 | 84 |
Bolus SAP ≥95% | 60 | 51 | 51 | 60 |
Acid or bolus SAP ≥95% | 63 | 54 | 59 | 58 |
Symptoms >127/d | 61 | 53 | 59 | 56 |
ARI >7% | 57 | 48 | 51 | 53 |
ARI >10% | 56 | 47 | 35 | 67 |
DBI <900 Ω | 63 | 47 | 20 | 86 |
Subjects without BPD, N = 51 | ||||
Acid SAP ≥95% | 58 | 46 | 25 | 78 |
Bolus SAP ≥95% | 57 | 47 | 43 | 61 |
Acid or bolus SAP ≥95% | 61 | 50 | 50 | 61 |
Symptoms >127/d | 65 | 54 | 54 | 65 |
ARI >7% | 60 | 48 | 43 | 65 |
ARI >10% | 60 | 47 | 32 | 74 |
DBI <900 Ω | 56 | 45 | 18 | 83 |
Subjects with BPD, N = 43 | ||||
Acid SAP ≥95% | 67 | 49 | 17 | 90 |
Bolus SAP ≥95% | 64 | 57 | 61 | 60 |
Acid or bolus SAP ≥95% | 64 | 61 | 70 | 55 |
Symptoms >127/d | 58 | 53 | 65 | 45 |
ARI >7% | 54 | 47 | 61 | 40 |
ARI >10% | 47 | 46 | 36 | 57 |
DBI <900 Ω | 71 | 50 | 22 | 90 |
Effect of GERD Therapies (N = 40)
Characteristic | Baseline at Week-0 | Follow-up at Week-5 | Baseline vs follow-up P values | Baseline to follow-up difference Week 5–Week 0 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall N = 40 | Treatment group | Overall N = 40 | Treatment group | Overall N = 40 | Treatment group | Difference between treatment groups | Adjusted P value | ||||||
PPI N = 22 | PPI + FM N = 18 | P value | PPI N = 22 | PPI + FM N = 18 | P value | PPI N = 22 | PPI + FM N = 18 | ||||||
Acid reflux index, % | 11 ± 1 | 11 ± 1 | 11 ± 2 | .99 | 11 ± 1 | 10 ± 2 | 11 ± 2 | .99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 1 ± 3 | .99 |
Acid reflux events | 97 ± 9 | 107 ± 12 | 88 ± 13 | .99 | 106 ± 9 | 98 ± 12 | 113 ± 14 | .99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.73 | 34 ± 23 | .74 |
Longest acid reflux, min | 21 ± 3 | 20 ± 3 | 21 ± 4 | .99 | 21 ± 3 | 22 ± 4 | 20 ± 4 | .99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | −3 ± 6 | .99 |
Bolus exposure time, % | 1 ± 0 | 1 ± 0 | 1 ± 0 | .99 | 2 ± 0 | 1 ± 0 | 2 ± 0 | .96 | 0.01 | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0 ± 0 | .99 |
Bolus events | 70 ± 6 | 76 ± 8 | 65 ± 9 | .99 | 86 ± 6 | 86 ± 7 | 87 ± 8 | .99 | <0.01 | 0.39 | 0.01 | 11 ± 8 | .86 |
Liquid events | 66 ± 5 | 71 ± 7 | 61 ± 8 | .99 | 75 ± 5 | 76 ± 6 | 75 ± 7 | .99 | 0.21 | 0.99 | 0.22 | 9 ± 9 | .99 |
Mixed events | 5 ± 2 | 2 ± 3 | 8 ± 3 | .90 | 10 ± 2 | 11 ± 3 | 10 ± 3 | .99 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.99 | −7 ± 5 | .85 |
Gas events | 4 ± 2 | 4 ± 1 | 5 ± 2 | .99 | 6 ± 2 | 9 ± 3 | 4 ± 3 | .93 | 0.99 | 0.20 | 0.99 | −7 ± 4 | .44 |
Proximal bolus clearance time, s | 6 ± 0 | 6 ± 1 | 7 ± 1 | .12 | 8 ± 0 | 7 ± 1 | 8 ± 1 | .41 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.04 | −1 ± 1 | .99 |
Proximal acid events | 17 ± 3 | 19 ± 3 | 15 ± 4 | .99 | 31 ± 3 | 28 ± 4 | 34 ± 4 | .99 | <0.01 | 0.24 | <0.01 | 1 ± 7 | .61 |
Proximal weakly acid event | 40 ± 4 | 39 ± 5 | 41 ± 6 | .99 | 46 ± 4 | 52 ± 6 | 41 ± 7 | .99 | 0.62 | 0.13 | 0.99 | 12 ± 8 | .69 |
Distal bolus clearance time, s | 13 ± 1 | 12 ± 1 | 14 ± 1 | .11 | 15 ± 1 | 14 ± 1 | 16 ± 1 | .19 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.04 | 0 ± 1 | .99 |
Distal acid events | 24 ± 3 | 26 ± 4 | 21 ± 5 | .99 | 38 ± 3 | 34 ± 5 | 42 ± 5 | .99 | <0.01 | 0.66 | <0.01 | 13 ± 8 | .52 |
Distal weakly acid events | 47 ± 4 | 48 ± 6 | 47 ± 6 | .99 | 49 ± 4 | 52 ± 6 | 45 ± 6 | .99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | −7 ± 7 | .99 |
Liquid acid events | 22 ± 3 | 25 ± 4 | 19 ± 4 | .99 | 31 ± 3 | 28 ± 4 | 34 ± 4 | .99 | 0.09 | 0.99 | 0.04 | 13 ± 7 | .45 |
Liquid weakly acid events | 45 ± 4 | 47 ± 5 | 43 ± 6 | .99 | 44 ± 4 | 48 ± 5 | 40 ± 6 | .99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | −4 ± 7 | .99 |
Mixed acid events | 2 ± 1 | 1 ± 1 | 2 ± 1 | .97 | 5 ± 1 | 6 ± 2 | 5 ± 2 | .99 | 0.01 | <0.01 | 0.75 | −3 ± 2 | .99 |
Mixed weakly acid events | 4 ± 1 | 1 ± 2 | 6 ± 2 | .97 | 5 ± 1 | 5 ± 2 | 5 ± 2 | .99 | 0.99 | 0.73 | 0.99 | −4 ± 4 | .99 |
DBI, ohms | 1581 ± 96 | 1478 ± 117 | 1684 ± 129 | .99 | 1535 ± 96 | 1474 ± 139 | 1596 ± 154 | .99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | −85 ± 227 | .99 |
Symptoms | 172 ± 12 | 182 ± 16 | 162 ± 18 | .99 | 120 ± 12 | 112 ± 16 | 128 ± 18 | .99 | 0.02 | 0.99 | 0.99 | −37 ± 33 | .99 |
Discussion
Summary
I-GERQ-R and Comparison to Other Studies
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
Clinical and Translational Research Implications Based on Physiological Reasoning
- (1)Potential utility of composite I-GERQ-R: There is a current push for exercising caution with the prescription of acid-suppressive medications as there may be consequences with short-term or long-term use.2,
- Vandenplas Y.
- Rudolph C.D.
- Di Lorenzo C.
- et al.
Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN).J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2009; 49: 498-54740,41,42In addition, as GERD frequently resolves with maturation, exit strategies with deprescription are not known. The I-GERQ-R may be useful in screening to rule out acid-GERD if the composite score is <16 (as only NPV was high for acid SAP and DBI <900 Ω). In such situations, acid-suppressive therapies may not be indicated, and differential diagnoses should be considered. However, those with a composite I-GERQ-R score ≥16 likely still need further testing to determine true diagnosis as sensitivity, specificity, and PPV values were low. These findings may be due to the unique nature of NICU circumstances, as these nonverbal infants require continuous care with frequent change in providers and parents may not always be available. Further investigations would allow accuracy with sorting out differential diagnosis so that evidence-based strategies can be applicable.43 - (2)Potential utility of individual I-GERQ-R components: Airway-digestive symptoms are heterogeneous and individual questions may have some merit. For example, in Table 3, I-GERQ-R questions #1, 3, 4, 5, 11, and the additional question of ‘coughing with feeds had more than one correlation with pH-impedance. Specific modification of the questionnaire may result in improved predictive values. On the other hand, these symptoms also frequently occur with other comorbidities with dysfunctional mechanisms.44,45,46Examples may include swallowing and feeding difficulty, infantile colic, maturational neuropathology, and chronic lung disease.47Hence, consideration of symptom clusters may be beneficial in narrowing differential diagnosis as follows: emesis and regurgitation factors (items #1–3), feeding management related symptoms (items #4, 5), painful discomfort (items #6, 7, 8), respiratory effects (items #9,10,11), and cardiac effects (item #12). Esophageal and pharyngeal provocation can activate adaptive reflexes and bodily movements, which are often misconstrued as pathologic symptoms.45,48,49
- (3)Reasoning for complicated GERD situations: A complication of chronic GERD may be failure to thrive and/or esophagitis. It is not a common practice to biopsy, the esophagus in infants, and diagnoses esophagitis. However, in the current report it is interesting that DBI <900 Ω and inadequate weight gain are related. Therefore, lower DBI, feeding difficulties, and failure to thrive may be markers of complicated GERD and require further assessment. Acid exposure (ARI) and (DBI) are also correlated and may contribute to pharyngoesophageal dysmotility.44,50,51,52In addition, delays with maturation and adaptation to stimulus can be due to immaturity of sensory-motor aspects of esophageal motility and aerodigestive reflexes.45,53,54All these factors prolong bolus clearance along with abnormal pharyngoesophageal functions29and these metrics worsen despite PPI therapy. Whether GERD pathophysiology or PPI therapy is responsible for worsening of these metrics cannot be answered by this study. On the other hand, GERD and maturational esophageal dysmotility may be coexisting comorbidities, either dependent or independent.
- (4)Physiological reasoning for troublesome symptoms: Presence of cough, sneeze and/or emesis, and overall symptom burden (as measured objectively by frequency of symptoms) may indicate the need for GERD screening.14,21Symptoms rarely occur with acid alone21but rather due to other refluxate properties or resultant aerodigestive reflexes evoked by provocation from refluxate.14,33,44,45,46,55Rather such reflexes are signals toward pharyngoesophageal-airway adaptation thus enhancing arousal responses and clearance, as in post-tussive swallowing46or esophagodeglutition response53or effortful swallowing after upper esophageal contractile reflex.54Furthermore, factors such as DBI (a potential marker of esophagitis),18SAP ≥95% (likelihood of distal acid, acid bolus, or nonacid bolus causing symptom), and proximal extent (activating proximal aerodigestive reflexes) can modify the activation of pharyngoesophageal motility and airway interactions based on cross-systems effect48,49and result in symptoms.33On the other hand, inefficient or exaggerated pharyngoesophageal motility reflexes contributed to symptom generation, some of which may be troublesome as persistent difficulties with feeding.43
Limitations and Future Directions
- (1)Further development of objective criteria: Current diagnostic criteria are largely subjective and provider dependent. Objective criteria are needed for establishing true acid-GERD and non–acid- GERD diagnosis to develop evidence-based treatment strategies. Components of such criteria may include ARI, DBI, acid-SAP, proximal extent of acid and nonacid bolus, bolus-SAP, growth trends, presence of comorbidities, and difficulties with feeding.
- (2)Treatment strategies for GERD: Acid-GERD is commonly assumed for symptom-based treatment with PPI or H2 receptor antagonist.22However, this study and prior works have demonstrated that symptoms may likely decrease with time and/or may likely be due to nonacid components of GER.21,29,56To further highlight the complexity of GER-inducing symptoms,21positive symptom association with acid only is prevalent in 10%, acid and bolus in 23%, and bolus only in 34%.21In addition, it is plausible that symptoms may also cause reflux but we did not test this in the present study design. Therefore, future approaches need to choose appropriate therapeutic targets (symptoms causing reflux, reflux causing symptoms, esophagitis markers, ARI severity, acidity-induced symptoms, and bolus-induced symptoms) in well-designed studies involving placebo. Potential treatments may include alginates or added rice formulas but a rigorous study is needed as there may be consequences to their use.12,57
- (3)Targeted therapies for GERD in high-risk infants: Pathophysiology-guided therapy can provide basis for optimal healing toward restoration of normalcy. However, true definition requires implementation of pH-impedance methods along with symptom scores and the use of placebo in future trials is justifiable, particularly as the use of PPI therapy can have direct effects, that is, worsening of bolus clearance metrics amidst persistence of symptoms (as shown from our data) and altered pharyngoesophageal motility.29
Conclusion
Authors’ Contributions:
Supplementary Materials
- Supplement 1
Ammendments and Protocols
References
- Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018; 66: 516-554
- Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN).J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2009; 49: 498-547
- Use of gastroesophageal reflux medications in premature infants after NICU discharge.Pediatrics. 2016; 138: e20161977
- Pharmacokinetics and acid-suppressive effects of esomeprazole in infants 1-24 months old with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2015; 60: S2-S8
- Gastroesophageal reflux: management guidance for the pediatrician.Pediatrics. 2013; 131: e1684-e1695
- Practice variance, prevalence, and economic burden of premature infants diagnosed with GERD.Hosp Pediatr. 2013; 3: 335-341
- Detection of gastro-oesophageal reflux in the neonatal unit.Acta Paediatr. 2018; 107: 1535-1540
- The infant gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire revised: development and validation as an evaluative instrument.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006; 4: 588-596
- Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms in infants in a rural population: longitudinal data over the first six months.BMC Pediatr. 2010; 10: 7
- Clinically meaningful difference for the infant gastroesophageal questionnaire revised version (I-GERQ-R): a quantitative synthesis.Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2020; 11: 87-93
- Clinical response to 2 dosing regimens of lansoprazole in infants with gastroesophageal reflux.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008; 46: 352-354
- Magnesium alginate in gastro-esophageal reflux: a randomized multicenter cross-over study in infants.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 17: 83
- Efficacy of conservative therapy as taught in the primary care setting for symptoms suggesting infant gastroesophageal reflux.J Pediatr. 2008; 152: 310-314
- Effects of esophageal acidification on troublesome symptoms: an approach to characterize true acid GERD in Dysphagic neonates.Dysphagia. 2017; 32: 509-519
- Significance of gastroesophageal refluxate in relation to physical, chemical, and spatiotemporal characteristics in symptomatic intensive care unit neonates.Pediatr Res. 2011; 70: 192-198
- Pharmacodynamics and systemic exposure of esomeprazole in preterm infants and term neonates with gastroesophageal reflux disease.J Pediatr. 2009; 155: 222-228
- Gastroesophageal reflux, as measured by 24-hour pH monitoring, in 509 healthy infants screened for risk of sudden infant death syndrome.Pediatrics. 1991; 88: 834-840
- Low-impedance baseline values predict severe esophagitis.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017; 65: 278-280
- Differentiation of esophageal pH-impedance characteristics classified by the mucosal integrity marker in human neonates.Pediatr Res. 2019; 85: 355-360
- The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data.Gastroenterology. 1994; 107: 1741-1745
- Differentiating esophageal sensitivity phenotypes using pH-impedance in intensive care unit infants referred for gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.Pediatr Res. 2021; 89: 636-644
- Neonatal histamine-2 receptor antagonist and proton pump inhibitor treatment at United States children's hospitals.J Pediatr. 2016; 174: 63-70.e3
- Use of medications for gastroesophageal reflux at discharge among extremely low birth weight infants.Pediatrics. 2008; 121: 22-27
- Metoclopramide, H2 blockers, and proton pump inhibitors: pharmacotherapy for gastroesophageal reflux in neonates.Clin Perinatol. 2012; 39: 99-109
- Smaller volume, thickened formulas in the management of gastroesophageal reflux in thriving infants.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2000; 31: 554-556
- Nasogastric feeding tubes may not contribute to gastroesophageal reflux in preterm infants.Am J Perinatol. 2018; 35: 643-647
- Knowledge, attitudes and practice styles of North American pediatricians regarding gastroesophageal reflux disease.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2007; 45: 56-64
- Role of feeding strategy bundle with acid-suppressive therapy in infants with esophageal acid reflux exposure: a randomized controlled trial.Pediatr Res. 2021; 89: 645-652
- Impact of feeding strategies with acid suppression on esophageal reflexes in human neonates with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a single-blinded randomized clinical trial.Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2020; 11: e00249
- Reliability and validity of an infant gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire.Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1993; 32: 472-484
- Reflux symptoms in 100 normal infants: diagnostic validity of the infant gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire.Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1996; 35: 607-614
- Spatiotemporal characteristics of acid refluxate and relationship to symptoms in premature and term infants with chronic lung disease.Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103: 720-728
- Mechanisms of aerodigestive symptoms in infants with varying acid reflux index determined by esophageal manometry.J Pediatr. 2019; 206: 240-247
- Correlation of esophageal lengths in children with height: application to the Tuttle test without prior esophageal manometry.J Pediatr. 1979; 94: 81-84
- The relationship between somatic growth and in vivo esophageal segmental and sphincteric growth in human neonates.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2006; 43: 35-41
- Indications, methodology, and interpretation of combined esophageal impedance-pH monitoring in children: ESPGHAN EURO-PIG standard protocol.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012; 55: 230-234
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381
- Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation.Anesth Analg. 2018; 126: 1763-1768
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease in infants: how much is predictable with questionnaires, pH-metry, endoscopy and histology?.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2005; 40: 210-215
- Proton pump inhibitors affect the gut microbiome.Gut. 2016; 65: 740-748
- AGA clinical practice update on de-prescribing of proton pump inhibitors: expert review.Gastroenterology. 2022; 162: 1334-1342
- Preterm birth, low birth weight, and risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma.Gastroenterology. 2005; 128: 607-609
- Impact of personalized feeding program in 100 NICU infants: pathophysiology-based approach for better outcomes.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012; 54: 62-70
- Pharyngoesophageal and cardiorespiratory interactions: potential implications for premature infants at risk of clinically significant cardiorespiratory events.Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2019; 316: G304-G312
- Mechanisms of bradycardia in premature infants: aerodigestive-cardiac regulatory-rhythm interactions.Physiol Rep. 2020; 8: e14495
- Mechanisms of cough provocation and cough resolution in neonates with bronchopulmonary dysplasia.Pediatr Res. 2015; 78: 462-469
- Impact of prematurity and co-morbidities on feeding milestones in neonates: a retrospective study.J Perinatol. 2010; 30: 201-208
- Definition and implications of novel pharyngo-glottal reflex in human infants using concurrent manometry ultrasonography.Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104: 2572-2582
- Esophago-glottal closure reflex in human infants: a novel reflex elicited with concurrent manometry and ultrasonography.Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102: 2286-2293
- Oesophageal motility and bolus transit abnormalities increase in parallel with the severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 34: 476-486
- Differential relaxation and contractile responses of the human upper esophageal sphincter mediated by interplay of mucosal and deep mechanoreceptor activation.Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2008; 294: G982-G988
- Effects of esophageal acidification on esophageal reflexes controlling the upper esophageal sphincter.Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2019; 316: G45-G54
- Effect of maturation of the magnitude of mechanosensitive and chemosensitive reflexes in the premature human esophagus.J Pediatr. 2006; 149: 77-82
- Esophageal body and upper esophageal sphincter motor responses to esophageal provocation during maturation in preterm newborns.J Pediatr. 2003; 143: 31-38
- Respiratory events in infants presenting with apparent life threatening events: is there an explanation from esophageal motility?.J Pediatr. 2014; 165: 250-255.e1
- Role of non-acid gastro-esophageal reflux in children with respiratory symptoms.Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017; 52: 669-674
- The effect of alginate in gastroesophageal reflux in infants.Paediatr Drugs. 2018; 20: 575-583
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: The authors disclose no conflicts.
Funding: Supported by the National Institutes of Health NIDDK (RO1 DK 068158 [to SRJ]) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002733 [to The Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science for REDCap support]).
Ethical Statement: The corresponding author, on behalf of all authors, jointly and severally, certifies that their institution has approved the protocol for any investigation involving humans or animals and that all experimentation was conducted in conformity with ethical and humane principles of research.
Data Transparency Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy