OBJECTIVES: Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring is the 'gold standard' investigation of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. It has been suggested that results may be influenced by lifestyle alteration during the study. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of lifestyle alteration and anxiety on outcome in pH monitoring. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients attending for pH monitoring were recruited. Post-intubation anxiety was quantified (STAI form Y-1). On completion a questionnaire was recorded comprising six questions regarding alteration to eating/drinking (FOOD) (score 0-6) and six regarding posture and activity (ACTIVITY) (score 0-6). The higher the score the greater the alteration of lifestyle. A 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) scored the degree of distress caused by the experience. pH studies were positive if exposure times at pH < 4 were greater than established normal values or if the Symptom Index was > 50%. Comparisons were made between patients with positive and negative studies regarding FOOD, ACTIVITY, VAS and STAI scores. RESULTS: Patients with positive pH studies had mean FOOD (2 vs 2; P> 0.05), ACTIVITY (2 vs 2; P> 0.05), VAS (3 vs 3; P> 0.05) and STAI (31 vs 32; P> 0.05) scores which were not significantly different from those of patients with negative pH studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle alteration was minimal in patients undergoing pH monitoring, nor was the experience distressing. There was no difference in lifestyle alteration and anxiety between those with positive and negative pH profiles.
OBJECTIVES: Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring is the 'gold standard' investigation of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. It has been suggested that results may be influenced by lifestyle alteration during the study. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of lifestyle alteration and anxiety on outcome in pH monitoring. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients attending for pH monitoring were recruited. Post-intubation anxiety was quantified (STAI form Y-1). On completion a questionnaire was recorded comprising six questions regarding alteration to eating/drinking (FOOD) (score 0-6) and six regarding posture and activity (ACTIVITY) (score 0-6). The higher the score the greater the alteration of lifestyle. A 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) scored the degree of distress caused by the experience. pH studies were positive if exposure times at pH < 4 were greater than established normal values or if the Symptom Index was > 50%. Comparisons were made between patients with positive and negative studies regarding FOOD, ACTIVITY, VAS and STAI scores. RESULTS:Patients with positive pH studies had mean FOOD (2 vs 2; P> 0.05), ACTIVITY (2 vs 2; P> 0.05), VAS (3 vs 3; P> 0.05) and STAI (31 vs 32; P> 0.05) scores which were not significantly different from those of patients with negative pH studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle alteration was minimal in patients undergoing pH monitoring, nor was the experience distressing. There was no difference in lifestyle alteration and anxiety between those with positive and negative pH profiles.