Upper esophageal sphincter and esophageal motility in patients with chronic cough and reflux: assessment by high-resolution manometry

Summary The pathophysiology of chronic cough and its association with dsymotility and laryngopharyngeal reflux remains unclear. This study applied high‐resolution manometry (HRM) to obtain a detailed evaluation of pharyngeal and esophageal motility in chronic cough patients with and without a positi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diseases of the esophagus 2013-04, Vol.26 (3), p.219-225
Hauptverfasser: Vardar, R., Sweis, R., Anggiansah, A., Wong, T., Fox, M. R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Summary The pathophysiology of chronic cough and its association with dsymotility and laryngopharyngeal reflux remains unclear. This study applied high‐resolution manometry (HRM) to obtain a detailed evaluation of pharyngeal and esophageal motility in chronic cough patients with and without a positive reflux–cough symptom association probability (SAP). Retrospective analysis of 66 consecutive patients referred for investigation of chronic cough was performed. Thirty‐four (52%) were eligible for inclusion (age 55 [19–77], 62% female). HRM (ManoScan 360, Given/Sierra Scientific Instruments, Mountain View, CA) with 10 water swallows was performed followed by a 24‐hour ambulatory pH monitoring. Of this group, 21 (62%) patients had negative reflux–cough SAP (group A) and 13 (38%) had positive SAP (group B). Results from 23 healthy controls were available for comparison (group C). Detailed analysis revealed considerable heterogeneity. A small number of patients had pathological upper esophageal sphincter (UES) function (n = 9) or esophageal dysmotility (n = 1). The overall baseline UES pressure was similar, but average UES residual pressure was higher in groups A and B than in control group C (−0.2 and −0.8 mmHg vs. −5.4 mmHg; P 
ISSN:1120-8694
1442-2050
DOI:10.1111/j.1442-2050.2012.01354.x