Mo1110 pH of the Pharynx Is Associated With Esophagitis and Rhinosinusitis

Aim. To perform a measurement of the pH in nose, pharynx and esophagus in patients with combination of esophagitis and rhinosinusitis compared to control groups. Methods. Diagnosis of rhinosinusitis was carried out on the basis of international criteria (1). Diagnosis of esophagitis was carried out on the basis of the Los Angeles classification (2). 76 patients aged 18 to 62 years were randomized into 3 groups. Group A included 25 individuals with a combination of rhinosinusitis, heartburn and esophagitis; in group B were 29 patients with rhinosinusitis without heartburn and without esophagitis; in group C were 22 persons without rhinosinusitis and without GERD. For all patients were performed a 24-hour pH monitoring of the esophagus, pH-metry of the nose and pharynx. For all patients performed microbiological examination of discharge from the middle nasal passage. Results. The mean time with pH below 4 in the esophagus during 24 hour was equal to 25.4% in Group A, 23.8% in group B, and 5.2% in group C (OR1-3=6,20; CI=4,05-9,48; OR23=5,69; CI= 3,73-8,67). The pH of the nose in patients in groups A, B and C was similar. Middle pH in the pharynx in patients in group A was 4,7 ± 0,4; Group B 6,4 ± 0,6 (p1-2 <0,02); Group C 7,2 ± 0,6 (p1-3 <0,002). Microbiological examination revealed strains of S. Aureus, E. Coli, Candida albicans at 100% of patients in group A, 52% of people in group B (OR1-2=47,71; CI=2,65-857,6) and 23% in group C (OR13=162,27; CI=8,42-3126,21). Conclusion. The patients with a combination of rhinosinusitis and esophagitis observed decrease of pharyngeal pH and recorded more frequent seeding of pathological flora in the nasal mucosa in versus with persons without GERD. References: 1. Fokkens W.J., Lund V.J., Mullol J. et al. European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012. Rhinol Suppl. 2012; 3(23): 1-298. 2. Lundell L.R., Dent J., Bennet J.R. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis clinical and functional correlates and further validation of Los Angeles classification. Gut. 1999; 45(2): 172-180.