BACKGROUND: The wireless pH is a new technique to monitor oesophageal acid exposure. AIM: To compare the feasibility and tolerability of the wireless pH capsule vs. the traditional pH probe. METHODS:Consecutive patients referred for a pH test were enrolled into the study. Patients were randomized to traditional pH probe, or wireless pH capsule. Patients recorded their activities, food consumption, symptoms, satisfaction with the test and completed a quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 50 patients recruited, 25 patients underwent placement of the traditional pH probe, and 25 the wireless pH capsule. Patients with the wireless pH capsule had less nose pain, runny nose, throat pain, throat discomfort and headache as compared with those with the traditional pH probe (P = 0.047, P = 0.001, P = 0.032, P = 0.001, P = 0.009, respectively). Patients in the wireless pH capsule group had more chest discomfort during the pH test (P = 0.037). Patients in the wireless pH capsule group perceived the test as interfering less with their overall daily activities, eating and sleep (P =0.001, P = 0.003, P = 0.025, respectively), and had overall satisfaction with the test (P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule is significantly better tolerated then the traditional pH probe.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The wireless pH is a new technique to monitor oesophageal acid exposure. AIM: To compare the feasibility and tolerability of the wireless pH capsule vs. the traditional pH probe. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for a pH test were enrolled into the study. Patients were randomized to traditional pH probe, or wireless pH capsule. Patients recorded their activities, food consumption, symptoms, satisfaction with the test and completed a quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 50 patients recruited, 25 patients underwent placement of the traditional pH probe, and 25 the wireless pH capsule. Patients with the wireless pH capsule had less nose pain, runny nose, throat pain, throat discomfort and headache as compared with those with the traditional pH probe (P = 0.047, P = 0.001, P = 0.032, P = 0.001, P = 0.009, respectively). Patients in the wireless pH capsule group had more chest discomfort during the pH test (P = 0.037). Patients in the wireless pH capsule group perceived the test as interfering less with their overall daily activities, eating and sleep (P =0.001, P = 0.003, P = 0.025, respectively), and had overall satisfaction with the test (P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule is significantly better tolerated then the traditional pH probe.
Authors: S Bruley des Varannes; F Mion; P Ducrotté; F Zerbib; P Denis; T Ponchon; R Thibault; J P Galmiche Journal: Gut Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: B G Turner; J R Saltzman; L Hua; R Maurer; Natan Feldman; D L Carr-Locke; R Burakoff; J J Liu Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: C Tharavej; J A Hagen; G Portale; C-C Hsieh; T A K Gandamihardja; J C Lipham; J H Peters; S R DeMeester; P F Crookes; C G Bremner; T R DeMeester Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-03-16 Impact factor: 4.584