Clinical UM Guideline
Subject: Esophageal pH Monitoring
Guideline #: CG-MED-02 Publish Date: 10/01/2024
Status: Reviewed Last Review Date: 08/08/2024
Description

This document addresses the use of standard catheter-based 24 hour and wireless-based 48 hour esophageal pH monitoring for all indications.

Clinical Indications

Medically Necessary:

Esophageal pH monitoring is considered medically necessary for the following adults, children or adolescents who are able to report their symptoms in the following clinical situations:

  1. Documentation of abnormal esophageal acid exposure in endoscopy-negative individuals being considered for surgical antireflux repairs (pH study done after withholding antisecretory drug regimen for at least 1 week); or
  2. Evaluation of antireflux surgery in individuals who are suspected to have ongoing abnormal reflux (pH study done after withholding antisecretory drug regimen for at least 1 week); or
  3. Evaluation of individuals with either normal or equivocal endoscopic finding and reflux symptoms that are refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (pH study after withholding antisecretory drug regimen for at least 1 week if the study is done to confirm excessive acid exposure or while taking the antisecretory drug regimen if the symptom-reflux correlation is to be scored); or
  4. To detect refractory reflux in individuals with chest pain after cardiac evaluation using a symptom reflux association scheme, preferably the symptoms association probability calculation (pH study done after a trial of PPI therapy for at least 4 weeks); or
  5. To evaluate an individual with suspected otolaryngologic manifestations (laryngitis, pharyngitis, chronic cough) of gastroesophageal reflux disease after symptoms have failed to respond to at least 4 weeks of PPI therapy (pH study done while the individual continues taking their antisecretory drug regimen to document the adequacy of therapy); or
  6. To document concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease in an adult onset, non-allergic asthmatic suspected of having reflux-induced asthma (pH study done after withholding antisecretory drugs for at least 1 week).

Esophageal pH monitoring is considered medically necessary in infants or children who are unable to report or describe symptoms of reflux with:

  1. Unexplained apnea; or
  2. Bradycardia; or
  3. Refractory coughing, wheezing, stridor or recurrent choking (aspiration); or
  4. Persistent or recurrent laryngitis; or
  5. Recurrent pneumonia.

Not Medically Necessary:

Esophageal pH monitoring is considered not medically necessary when the criteria above have not been met.

Coding

The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this document are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.

When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:

CPT

 

91034

Esophagus, gastroesophageal reflux test; with nasal catheter pH electrode(s) placement, recording, analysis and interpretation

91035

Esophagus, gastroesophageal reflux test; with mucosal attached telemetry pH electrode placement, recording, analysis and interpretation

91038

Esophageal function test, gastroesophageal reflux test with nasal catheter intraluminal impedance electrode(s) placement, recording, analysis and interpretation; prolonged (greater than 1 hour, up to 24 hours)

 

 

ICD-10 Diagnosis

 

 

All diagnoses

When services are Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure codes listed above when criteria are not met, or for situations designated in the Clinical Indications section as not medically necessary.

Discussion/General Information

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a disease where the lower esophageal sphincter that separates the esophagus from the stomach becomes weakened and allows acidic stomach contents to flow backwards into the esophagus. GERD is associated with heartburn, Barrett’s esophagus, esophageal stricture, some cases of asthma, posterior laryngitis, chronic cough, dental erosions, chronic hoarseness, pharyngitis, subglottic stenosis or stricture, nocturnal choking, and recurrent pneumonia. GERD is usually diagnosed by clinical history and is typically treated initially with an empiric trial of PPI. Individuals who do not respond to PPI therapy or present with more complex symptoms are often referred to endoscopy with pH monitoring for further evaluation. The pH monitoring provides quantitative data on both esophageal acid exposure and on the temporal correlation between individual symptoms and reflux events.

Conventional catheter-based pH monitoring involves the placement of a catheter with a pH electrode attached to its tip within the esophagus at 5 cm above the upper margin of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). The electrode is attached to an electronic data recorder worn on a waist belt or shoulder strap. Every instance of acid reflux as well as its duration and pH is recorded, indicating gastric acid reflux over a 24-hour period. Subjective symptoms are also manually reported in a patient log; these symptoms can then be temporally related to acid reflux events.

Non catheter-based (i.e., wireless) devices have become available. One such device is the Bravo capsule, which is attached to the esophageal wall during an endoscopy procedure. The Bravo capsule contains a sensor that transmits pH data via radio waves to a small data collection device worn on the belt. The Bravo capsule is naturally dislodged from the esophagus in a short period of time. The sensor is then passed through the digestive tract.

In 2022, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG; Katz, 2022) published their clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. In that document, they make the following suggestions:

We suggest esophageal pH monitoring (Bravo, catheter-based, or combined impedance-pH monitoring) performed OFF PPIs if the diagnosis of GERD has not been established by a prior pH monitoring study or an endoscopy showing long-segment Barrett’s esophagus or severe reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles grade C or D). (Conditional recommendation, low level of evidence)

We suggest esophageal impedance pH monitoring performed ON PPIs for patients with an established diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not responded adequately to twice-daily PPI therapy. (Conditional recommendation, low level of evidence)

An issue that frequently arises is whether esophageal pH monitoring should be performed on or off PPI therapy. It is generally recommended to monitor after PPIs are stopped for 7 days if the diagnosis of GERD is not clear, and prior to antireflux surgery or endoscopic therapy for GERD to document abnormal acid reflux [16]. This recommendation includes testing with either the telemetry capsule (48-96 hours) or impedance-pH catheter. Reflux monitoring while on PPI therapy is suggested in patients who have had the diagnosis of GERD established by previous objective evidence (i.e. erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus, prior pH testing off PPI) but who have symptoms potentially reflux-related that have not responded to PPIs. In these patients, impedance/pH testing is recommended to document reflux hypersensitivity for weakly acidic or non-acidic reflux as well as for acid reflux.

These suggestions are made on the basis of a low level of evidence,

In 2022 the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA; Yadlapati, 2022b) published a clinical practice update on the personalized approach to the evaluation and management of GERD. In that document they provided the following:

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: If PPI therapy is continued in a patient with unproven GERD, clinicians should evaluate the appropriateness and dosing within 12 months after initiation, and offer endoscopy with prolonged wireless reflux monitoring off PPI therapy to establish appropriateness of long-term PPI therapy.
BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: If troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain do not respond adequately to a PPI trial or when alarm symptoms exist, clinicians should investigate with endoscopy and, in the absence of erosive reflux disease (Los Angeles B or greater) or long segment (≥3 cm) Barrett’s esophagus, perform prolonged wireless pH monitoring off medication (96-hour preferred if available) to confirm and phenotype GERD or to rule out GERD.
BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should perform upfront objective reflux testing off medication (rather than an empiric PPI trial) in patients with isolated extra-esophageal symptoms and suspicion for reflux etiology.
BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In symptomatic patients with proven GERD, clinicians should consider ambulatory 24-hour pH impedance monitoring on PPI as an option to determine the mechanism of persisting esophageal symptoms despite therapy (if adequate expertise exists for interpretation).

The AGA published additional recommendations in 2022 for the clinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non-responders (Yadlapati, 2022a). This document was the result of a consensus conference using the RAND Appropriateness Method. The results they reported included:

Clinical role and protocol for wireless pH monitoring

Impedance-pH monitoring on PPI therapy

* Acid exposure time (AET)

In 2023, the AGA (Chen, 2023) published a clinical practice update on the diagnosis and management of extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease. In that document that provided the following statements:

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Currently, there is no single diagnostic tool that can conclusively identify GER as the cause of EER symptoms. Determination of the contribution of GER to EER symptoms should be based on the global clinical impression derived from patients’ symptoms, response to GER therapy, and results of endoscopy and reflux testing.
BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Initial testing to evaluate for reflux should be tailored to patients’ clinical presentation and can include upper endoscopy and ambulatory reflux monitoring studies of acid suppressive therapy.
BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Testing can be considered for those with an established objective diagnosis of GERD who do not respond to high doses of acid suppression. Testing can include pH-impedance monitoring while on acid suppression to evaluate the role of ongoing acid or non-acid reflux.

They also note, “Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring objectively defines reflux burden to facilitate a GERD diagnosis but does not determine if GERD is the cause of extraesophageal symptoms”

No strength of recommendation ratings were provided in either the Yadlapati  (2022b) or the Chen (2023) recommendations.

Definitions

Endoscopy: An examination of the interior of a canal or hollow viscus by means of a special instrument, such as an endoscope.

Esophageal pH monitoring: A medical test that measures the acidity in the esophagus.

References

Peer Reviewed Publications:

  1. Ang D, Teo EK, Ang TL, et al. To Bravo or not? A comparison of wireless esophageal pH monitoring and conventional pH catheter to evaluate non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease in a multiracial Asian cohort. J Dig Dis. 2010; 11(1):19-27.
  2. Belafsky PC, Allen K, Castro-Del Rosario L, Roseman D. Wireless pH testing as an adjunct to unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy: the safety and efficacy of transnasal telemetry capsule placement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004; 131(1):26-28.
  3. DeVault KR, Castell DO. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100(1):190-200.
  4. Ergun GA, Kahrilas PJ. Clinical applications of esophageal manometry and pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996; 91(6):1077-1089.
  5. Pandolfino JE, Bianchi LK, Lee TJ, et al. Esophagogastric junction morphology predicts susceptibility to exercise-induced reflux. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99(8):1430-1436.
  6. Pandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, et al. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98(4):740-749.
  7. Pandolfino JE, Schreiner MA, Lee TJ, et al. Comparison of the Bravo wireless and Digitrapper catheter-based pH monitoring systems for measuring esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100(7):1466-1476.
  8. Prakash C, Clouse RE. Value of extended recording time with wireless pH monitoring in evaluating gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005; 3(4):329-334.
  9. Tu CH, Lee YC, Wang HP, et al. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring by using a wireless system: a pilot study in Taiwan. Hepatogastroenterology. 2004; 51(60):1586-1589.
  10. Ward EM, Devault KR, Bouras EP, et al. Successful oesophageal pH monitoring with a catheter-free system. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004; 19(4):449-454.
  11. Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, Oberg S. Wireless esophageal pH monitoring is better tolerated than the catheter-based technique: results from a randomized cross-over trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007: 102(2):239-245.
  12. Wong WM, Bautista J, Dekel R, et al. Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs traditional 24-hr esophageal pH monitoring- a randomized trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 15; 21(2):155-163.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

  1. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement: Guidelines on the use of esophageal pH recording. Gastroenterology. 1996; 110(6):1981.
  2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination for 24-Hour Ambulatory Esophageal pH Monitoring. NCD #100.3. Effective June 11, 1985. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/. Accessed on July 24, 2024.
  3. Chen JW, Vela MF, Peterson KA, Carlson DA. AGA clinical practice update on the diagnosis and management of extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease: expert review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023; 21(6):1414-1421.
  4. Chotiprashidi P, Liu J, Carpenter S, et al. ASGE Technology Status Evaluation Report: wireless esophageal pH monitoring system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62(4):485-487.
  5. Gyawali CP, Carlson DA, Chen JW, et al. ACG clinical guidelines: Clinical use of esophageal physiologic testing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020; 115(9):1412-1428.
  6. Hirano I, Richter JE; Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. ACG practice guidelines: esophageal reflux testing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102(3):668-685.
  7. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF, American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology. 2008; 135(4):1383-1391.
  8. Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022; 117(1):27-56.
  9. Yadlapati R, Gawron AJ, Gyawali CP, et al. Clinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non-responders: recommendation statements. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022a; 56(8): 1274-1283.
  10. Yadlapati R, Gyawali CP, Pandolfino JE; CGIT GERD consensus conference participants. AGA clinical practice update on the personalized approach to the evaluation and management of GERD: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022b; 20(5):984-994.
Websites for Additional Information
  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Diagnosis of GER & GERD. Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/acid-reflux-ger-gerd-adults/diagnosis. Last Reviewed July 2020. Accessed on July 24, 2024.
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Diagnosis of GER & GERD in Children. Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/acid-reflux-ger-gerd-children/diagnosis. Last Reviewed November 2020. Accessed on July 24, 2024.
  3. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Diagnosis of GER & GERD in Infants. Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/acid-reflux-ger-gerd-infants/diagnosis. Last Reviewed November 2020. Accessed on July 24, 2024.
  4. National Cancer Institute. PDQ Esophageal Cancer Screening. Updated: March 6, 2024. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/esophageal/hp/esophageal-screening-pdq. Updated: July 24, 2024
  5. National Library of Medicine. Medical encyclopedia: Gastroesophageal reflux disease. Last update: June 9, 2021. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000265.htm. Accessed on July 24, 2024.
Index

Bravo Capsule
Esophageal pH Monitoring
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)

The use of specific product names is illustrative only. It is not intended to be a recommendation of one product over another, and is not intended to represent a complete listing of all products available.

History

Status

Date

Action

Reviewed

08/08/2024

Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee (MPTAC) review. Revised References and Websites sections.

Revised

08/10/2023

MPTAC review. Revised formatting in Clinical Indications section. Added “when the criteria above have not been met” to NMN statement. Revised References sections.

Reviewed

08/11/2022

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References, Websites for Additional Information and History sections.

Reviewed

08/12/2021

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References, Websites for Additional Information and History sections.

Reviewed

08/13/2020

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References, Websites for Additional Information and History sections. Reformatted Coding section.

Reviewed

08/22/2019

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References, Websites for Additional Information and History sections.

Reviewed

09/13/2018

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References, Websites for Additional Information and History sections.

Reviewed

11/02/2017

MPTAC review. The document header wording updated from “Current Effective Date” to “Publish Date.” Minor format changes to the Clinical Indications section. Updated review date, References and History sections.

Reviewed

11/03/2016

Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee (MPTAC) review. Updated review date, References and History sections. Updated formatting in the Position Statement section.

Reviewed

11/05/2015

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References and History sections. Removed ICD-9 codes from Coding section.

Reviewed

11/13/2014

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References and History sections.

Revised

11/14/2013

MPTAC review. In the not medically necessary criteria, added language to indicate esophageal pH monitoring is not medically necessary to establish a diagnosis of GERD in individuals with Barrett’s esophagus. Updated review date, References and History sections.

Reviewed

11/08/2012

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References and History sections.

Reviewed

11/17/2011

MPTAC review. Updated review date, Coding, References and History sections.

Reviewed

11/18/2010

MPTAC review. Updated review date, References and History sections.

Reviewed

11/19/2009

MPTAC review. Typographical error corrected in third bullet of the medical necessity criteria. No change to the intent of the document. Updated review date, Description, References and History sections. Removed Place of Service/Duration section.

Reviewed

11/20/2008

MPTAC review. Updated review date, references and history sections.

Revised

11/29/2007

MPTAC review. As a result of MED.00045 (Wireless Esophageal pH Monitoring) being archived, CG-MED-02 revised to address both catheter-based and wireless esophageal pH monitoring. Updated review date, Discussion/General Information, Coding, References and History sections. Title changed to “Esophageal pH Monitoring” in order to address both wireless and catheter-based esophageal pH monitoring.

 

10/01/2007

Updated coding section with 10/01/2007 ICD-9 changes.

Reviewed

05/17/2007

MPTAC review. No change to guideline position statement. Updated Coding section; removed CPT 91033 deleted 12/31/2004.

Reviewed

06/08/2006

MPTAC review. No change to position statement. Added reference to MED.00045 Wireless Esophageal pH Monitoring. Updated Reference and Coding sections.

 

11/17/2005

Added reference for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) – National Coverage Determination (NCD).

Revised

07/14/2005

MPTAC review. Revision based on Pre-merger Anthem and Pre-merger WellPoint Harmonization.

Pre-Merger Organizations

Last Review Date

Document Number

Title

Anthem, Inc.

 

 

No document

WellPoint Health Networks, Inc.

09/23/2004

2.06.01

Esophageal pH Monitoring


Federal and State law, as well as contract language, and Medical Policy take precedence over Clinical UM Guidelines. We reserve the right to review and update Clinical UM Guidelines periodically. Clinical guidelines approved by the Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee are available for general adoption by plans or lines of business for consistent review of the medical necessity of services related to the clinical guideline when the plan performs utilization review for the subject. Due to variances in utilization patterns, each plan may choose whether to adopt a particular Clinical UM Guideline. To determine if review is required for this Clinical UM Guideline, please contact the customer service number on the member's card.

Alternatively, commercial or FEP plans or lines of business which determine there is not a need to adopt the guideline to review services generally across all providers delivering services to Plan’s or line of business’s members may instead use the clinical guideline for provider education and/or to review the medical necessity of services for any provider who has been notified that his/her/its claims will be reviewed for medical necessity due to billing practices or claims that are not consistent with other providers, in terms of frequency or in some other manner.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.

© CPT Only - American Medical Association