616.2:615.

3 ISSN 1605&7295

C




.. ,
..

:
, .


. .. ,

,
() , "
,
, , .
().
. . ., ., .
, 6215 "

2036 (32,8 %), 810 (13 %) 95006, . ,

, 645 (10,4 %) " . , 5/7
. (065) 225&50&55
296 (4,8 %) [6]. , "
.
2 2012 .
(),
". J. Koufman
1991 [9] "
, .
,
410 % 50 % "
. ,
(),
, "
, ,
III "
" , "
" "
[7].
"
, ,
, , , , (),
() . 20 70 % "
. "
4 "
.
" ,
, , ,
/ , "
1 .

 1  2012 21


, " "
, , " " "
"
[2]. Restechs Dx"pH (Respiratory Techno"
2001 logy Corp, San Diego, CA), "
"
(), 8 " 1/2 48 [1, 12].
"
0 26 [3].
, " "
7 95 % " , "
" "
" " "
[13]. [8]. "
, "
" "
. , "
" [10].
" ,
, , "
[5].
2002 , , ("
" 40 2 ) "
(), " "
" .
(). "

(9 )
, " 84 .
. " ""
"
0 ( ) 5 ( ). " . "
13 " : 1) ,
" [4]. , , "
, " , , ,
" "
1 "
"" ; 2)
, " 7 "
3) "
5 . 4
. "
24" 18 , , "
"" , ,
H"" , ,
, () ""
"
" " 4 .
5 [14]. , "
" " , .
" "
" "
", " .
" " , "
"
. "

22  1  2012


. 1.
() , /
.
0 (); 2 ()
, 6 12 "
0 (); 2 ();
, 6 " 4 ()
.
0 (); 2 ();
/
4 ()
"
0 (); 1 ();
. 2 (); 3 ();
( 4 ()
3 ) (" 0 (); 1 ();
), (" 2 (); 3 ();
) " ( "" 4 ()
, ). " 0 (); 1 ();

4,0 4,6 %
2 (); 3 ();
, 7,0 % " 4 ()

4,5 % " 0 (); 2 ()

&
0 (); 2 ()
.
4,0 0,7 % " ()
, 1,1 % "
0,5 % "
2.
.
, , 0 = ;
24 , 5 =
?
.
" 1.
0 1 2 3 4 5

( "
) 2. 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 : 1. 3.
0 1 2 3 4 5
() "
40 12 , " 4. ,
0 1 2 3 4 5
() "
" 5.
. 0 1 2 3 4 5
( "

, , , , " 6.
0 1 2 3 4 5

, ;
3 ; " 7.
0 1 2 3 4 5

).
8. &
0 1 2 3 4 5


, 9. , ,
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 12 , 6 "
. ()
"
,
.
8 " 5" (0
(. 1). " ; 5 ). "
, " ,
, (. 2) , , , "
(. . , 6 12 , , , .
6 ). " "
"

 1  2012 23


3.
1 , n = 42 2 , n = 40 1
/ 16 / 26 9 / 31 0,11
,
47,3 9,7 46,4 8,6 0,92
25 65 26 62
1 2 0,56
1 3 0,33

29 35 0,42
,
25 28 0,62
8 11 0,49
14,68 5,77 12,78 5,21 0,11
12,34 3,79 12,41 3,56 0,76
. U . .
1 2

Excel 2003 (Mic"

rosoft) "7 (StatSoft). 6 (2,90 0,73; = 0,001) 12
(2,81 0,82; = 0,001) "
, . "
, , " ( "
( 0). " ). 18 "

2 U " (0,90 0,83; = 0,01).
.
6, 12, 18


( 0)
.

84 ,
, "
".
82 (42 "
40 ),
"
. . 1.

. 3, "
, "
, ,
, ,
( 0).
, "
24" ". , "

.
"
"
"
. 4, . 1 2.
. . 2.
. 1 . 4, "

24  1  2012


4. 6, 12
18
1 2

( ) ( ) ( )

1 2
(6 )
2,90 0,73a 0,13 0,75 3,03 1,05a

(0,001) (0,595) (0,03)

0,90 0,45 1,48 0,47a 0,57 0,66

(0,048) (0,004) (0,48)

1 3
(12 )
2,81 0,82a 0,93 0,85 3,73 1,18a

(0,001) (0,191) (0,02)

2,21 0,64a 2,75 0,50b 0,54 0,69

(0,002) (0,000) (0,017)

1 4
(18 )
0,90 0,83 0,58 0,91 1,48 1,26

(0,099) (0,490) (0,124)

3,21 0,57b 2,95 0,54b 0,26 0,75

(0,000) (0,000) (0,675)

. : < 0,01; b < 0,001.

"
6 6 (1,48 0,47; = 0,004) 12 (2,75
(0,13 0,75; = 0,595), 0,50; = 0,0001) "
12 (0,93 0,85; "
= 0,191), 18
(0,58 0,91; = 0,490). .
" ( = 0,0001)
, " ( = 0,004). "
"
6
(3,03 1,05; = 0,003) 12 (3,73 1,18; 18 (2,95 0,54; = 0,0001). "
= 0,002), 18 (1,48 1,26; = 0,124). ,
" ,
" ( = 0,0001)
, " ( = 0,002).
, " , "
.
. 6 (0,57 0,66; = 0,484), 12 (0,54 0,69;
. 4 . 2, = 0,017) 18 (0,26 0,75; = 0,675)
6 (. 2).
(0,90 0,45; = 0,048),
"
. 12 "
"
(2,21 0,64; = 0,002), , "
" . "
( = 0,01), " "
( = 0,006) () 12
( = 0,003).
18 . 6 "
(3,21 0,57; = 0,0001), ,
( = 0,0001) , .
( = 0,001). ,

 1  2012 25


" , "
. .
"
12 , "
(
6 " 2,81 2,21 ). ,
. "
" 12 , 10
7,
, , " " . , "
, . " "
(. 2),
, 12 " 6 12 (
" ).
. , , "
, , "
6 12 , 6 , .
"
. , "
" 1. (40 "
. 2 ) 12
,
, 12 , " .
, , " 2. 6
"
, , " .
, , 3. "
. " 612 , "
O. Reichel . [11], " .

8. Karkos P.D., Wilson J.A. Empiric treatment of laryngopharyngeal

1. Ayazi S., Lipham J., Hagen G. et al. A new technique for measu&
rement of pharyngeal pH: normal values and discriminating pH
threshold // J. Gastroenterol. Surg. 2009. Vol. 13 (8).
P. 14221429.
2. Beaver M.E. et al. Diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease
with digital imaging // Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003.
Vol. 128. P. 103.
3. Belafsky P.C., Postma G.N., Koufman J.A. The validity and relia&
bility of the reflux finding score (RFS) // Laryngoscope.
2001. Vol. 111. P. 13131317.
4. Belafsky P.C., Postma G.N., Koufman K.A. Validity and reliability
of the reflux symptom index (RSI) // J. Voice. 2002.
Vol. 16. P. 274277.
5. Hicks D.M., Ours T.M., Abelson T.I. et al. The prevalence of
hypopharynx findings associated with gastroesophageal reflux
in normal volunteers // J. Voice. 2002. Vol. 16.
P. 564579.
6. Jaspersen D., Kulig M., Labenz J. et al. Prevalence of extra&oe&
sophageal manifestations in gastro&oesophageal reflux disease:
an analysis based on the ProGERD study // Aliment. Pharmacol.
Ther. 2003. Vol. 17. P. 15151520.
7. Johnston N. et al. Pepsin and carbonic anhydrase isoenzyme III
as diagnostic markers for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease //
Laryngoscope. 2004. Vol. 114. P. 21292134.
reflux with proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review // Lary&
ngoscope. 2006. Vol. 116. P. 144148.
9. Koufman J.A. The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesop&
hageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 pati&
ents using ambulatory 24&hour pH monitoring and an experimen&
tal investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development
of laryngeal injury // Laryngoscope. 1991. Vol. 101
(Suppl. 53). P. 178.
10. Qadeer M.A., Phillips C.O., Lopez A.R. et al. Proton pump inhibi&
tor therapy for suspected GERD&related chronic laryngitis: a me&
taanalysis of randomized controlled trials // Am. J. Gastroente&
rol. 2006. Vol. 101. P. 26462654.
..
11. Reichel O., Dressel H., Wiedernders K. et al. Double&blind, pla&
cebo&controlled trial with esomeprazole for symptoms and signs
associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux // Otolaryngol. Head
Neck Surg. 2008. Vol. 139. P. 414420.
12. Vaezi M.F. Laryngitis: from the gastroenterologists point of view
// Extraesophageal reflux / M.F. Vaezi San Diego: Plural Publis&
hing, Inc, 2009. P. 3747.
13. Vaezi M.F. Sensitivity and specificity of reflux&attributed laryngeal
lesions: experimental and clinical evidence // Am. J. Med.
2003. Vol. 115 (Suppl. 3A). P. 97S104.
14. Vincent D.A. Jr, Garrett J.D., Radionoff S.L. et al. The proximal
probe in oesophageal pH monitoring: development of a normati&
ve database // J. Voice. 2000. Vol. 14. P. 247254.

26  1  2012


.. , ..


() "
(). , 12" ("
40 2 ) .
( 6 ),
.

I.L. Klyaritskaya, A.P. Balabantceva

Comparative efficacy of high daily doses of proton pump inhibitors
in laryngopharyngeal reflux
The article presents results of comparative study of efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in patients with laryngopha"
ryngeal reflux (LPR). It has been shown that that 12 weeks of treatment with PPI (pantoprazol 40 mg, twice daily) signifi"
cantly improved LPR symptoms in comparison with control group. As the clinical effect was not stable (the relapse of symp"
toms was observed 6 weeks after PPI cessation), patients with LPR may require for longer treatment with PPIs.

 1  2012 27