Literature DB >> 15573913

Proximal sensor data from routine dual-sensor esophageal pH monitoring is often inaccurate.

Matt McCollough1, Abdul Jabbar, Robert Cacchione, Jeff W Allen, Steve Harrell, John M Wo.   

Abstract

Dual-sensor esophageal pH monitoring is routinely used to diagnose GERD. However, the proximal sensor may not be in proximal esophagus in patients with shortened esophagi. Our objective was to determine how often the proximal sensor was misplaced and to determine the effect on pH monitoring. Superior margins of the upper and lower esophageal sphincters (UES and LES) were determined prospectively in consecutive patients. Dual sensors were placed 20 and 5 cm above the LES with a fixed 15-cm spacing pH catheter. Patients were classified into subgroups based on the actual location of the proximal sensor. In 661 patients, the proximal pH sensor was in the hypopharynx in 9% of patients, within the UES in 36%, and in the proximal esophagus in 55%. Spearman's correlation for acid exposure was very good between the dual sensors when the proximal sensor was in the proximal esophagus (R = 0.76) but was poor when the proximal sensor was misplaced in the hypopharynx (R = 0.28). The proximal sensor was misplaced in 45% of patients undergoing dual-sensor esophageal pH monitoring. It is important to locate the UES by manometry before interpreting the proximal esophageal pH data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15573913     DOI: 10.1023/b:ddas.0000043372.98660.82

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  27 in total

Review 1.  Anatomy and physiology of the upper esophageal sphincter.

Authors:  I M Lang; R Shaker
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1997-11-24       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Can symptoms predict esophageal motor function or acid exposure in gastroesophageal reflux disease? A comparison of esophageal manometric and twenty-four-hour pH parameters in typical and extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  J K DiBaise; J Lof; E M Quigley
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.062

3.  The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in asthma patients without reflux symptoms.

Authors:  S M Harding; M R Guzzo; J E Richter
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 21.405

4.  Spatiotemporal characteristics of physiological gastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  B L Weusten; L M Akkermans; G P vanBerge-Henegouwen; A J Smout
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1994-03

5.  Upper esophageal sphincter function during gastroesophageal reflux events revisited.

Authors:  S Torrico; M Kern; M Aslam; S Narayanan; A Kannappan; J Ren; Z Sui; C Hofmann; R Shaker
Journal:  Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.052

6.  Correlations between esophageal diseases and manometric length: a study of 617 patients.

Authors:  Z T Awad; P Watson; C J Filipi; R E Marsh; T Tomonaga; Y Shiino; S Bhatia; W Boedefeld
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Upper esophageal sphincter function during deglutition.

Authors:  P J Kahrilas; W J Dodds; J Dent; J A Logemann; R Shaker
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Proximal esophageal pH-metry in patients with 'reflux laryngitis'.

Authors:  P Jacob; P J Kahrilas; G Herzon
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Clinical and functional characterization of high gastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  M G Patti; H T Debas; C A Pellegrini
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Frequency and site of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with chest symptoms. Studies using proximal and distal pH monitoring.

Authors:  O L Gastal; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 9.410

View more
  9 in total

1.  24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring may be an inadequate test for detecting gastroesophageal reflux in patients with mixed typical and atypical symptoms.

Authors:  Michelle S Han; Michal J Lada; Dylan R Nieman; Andreas Tschoner; Christian G Peyre; Carolyn E Jones; Thomas J Watson; Jeffrey H Peters
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Pharyngeal pH alone is not reliable for the detection of pharyngeal reflux events: A study with oesophageal and pharyngeal pH-impedance monitoring.

Authors:  Marie Desjardin; Sabine Roman; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Guillaume Gourcerol; Benoit Coffin; Alain Ropert; François Mion; Frank Zerbib
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 3.  ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Philip O Katz; Kerry B Dunbar; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Katarina B Greer; Rena Yadlapati; Stuart Jon Spechler
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  New developments in extraesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Elif Saritas Yuksel; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2012-09

5.  Acid Rather Than Nonacid Reflux Burden Is a Predictor of Tooth Erosion.

Authors:  Meenakshi Ganesh; Anne Hertzberg; Samuel Nurko; Howard Needleman; Rachel Rosen
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.839

6.  Manometric findings in patients with isolated distal gastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  Yasemin Ozin; Ulku Dagli; Sedef Kuran; Burhan Sahin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Ratio between proximal/distal gastroesophageal reflux does not discriminate abnormal proximal reflux.

Authors:  Sebastião Carlos Pannocchia Neto; Fernando A M Herbella; Luciana C Silva; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus.

Authors:  C Prakash Gyawali; Peter J Kahrilas; Edoardo Savarino; Frank Zerbib; Francois Mion; André J P M Smout; Michael Vaezi; Daniel Sifrim; Mark R Fox; Marcelo F Vela; Radu Tutuian; Jan Tack; Albert J Bredenoord; John Pandolfino; Sabine Roman
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for oesophageal manometry and oesophageal reflux monitoring.

Authors:  Nigel J Trudgill; Daniel Sifrim; Rami Sweis; Mark Fullard; Kumar Basu; Mimi McCord; Michael Booth; John Hayman; Guy Boeckxstaens; Brian T Johnston; Nicola Ager; John De Caestecker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 23.059

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.