Literature DB >> 15843417

Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo).

S Bruley des Varannes1, F Mion, P Ducrotté, F Zerbib, P Denis, T Ponchon, R Thibault, J P Galmiche.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Oesophageal pH monitoring is a useful test for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) but has some limitations related to the nasopharyngeal electrode. Recently, a telemetric catheter free system (CFS) (Bravo; Medtronic) was developed. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance of data between the conventional pH measurement system (CPHMS) and the CFS Bravo.
METHODS: Forty patients with symptoms suggestive of GORD underwent 24 hour oesophageal pH monitoring using the CPHMS with a nasopharyngeal electrode and the Bravo CFS simultaneously. The sensitive tips of both electrodes were positioned at the same level under fluoroscopy. In addition to automatic analysis, each reflux episode was checked visually and characterised.
RESULTS: There was a significant correlation (r = 0.87, p < 0.0001) between the 24 hour oesophageal acid exposures recorded by the CPHMS and the CFS. Twenty four hour oesophageal acid exposure was significantly lower with the CFS than with the CPHMS (2.4 (0.4-8.7) v 3.6 (0.7-8.6); p < 0.0001). Consequently, with the CFS, the cut off level for the diagnosis of GORD, as calculated from the regression equation, was 2.9% (for the 4.2% cut off determined in controls with the CPHMS). After this adjustment, concordance of the diagnosis of GORD was 88% (kappa 0.760). Diagnosis of GORD was established in more patients with the CFS 48 hour results than with the 24 hour results.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite strong correlations between oesophageal acid exposure recorded with the two devices, the Bravo CFS significantly under recorded acid exposure compared with the CPHMS. Provided some correcting factors are used, the Bravo CFS can improve the sensitivity of pHmetry for the diagnosis of GORD by allowing more prolonged recordings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15843417      PMCID: PMC1774783          DOI: 10.1136/gut.2005.066274

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  10 in total

Review 1.  French-Belgian Consensus Conference on Adult Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease 'Diagnosis and Treatment': report of a meeting held in Paris, France, on 21-22 January 1999. The Jury of the consensus conference.

Authors: 
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.566

2.  An evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management--the Genval Workshop Report.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 3.  [Guidelines for esophageal pH-monitoring in adults].

Authors:  L Picon; S Bruley Des Varannes
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin Biol       Date:  2000-10

4.  Updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Kenneth R DeVault; Donald O Castell
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 5.  Clinical esophageal pH recording: a technical review for practice guideline development.

Authors:  P J Kahrilas; E M Quigley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Effect of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring on reflux-provoking activities.

Authors:  R Fass; R Hell; R E Sampliner; G Pulliam; E Graver; V Hartz; C Johnson; P Jaffe
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Reflux related symptoms in patients with normal oesophageal exposure to acid.

Authors:  G Shi; S Bruley des Varannes; C Scarpignato; M Le Rhun; J P Galmiche
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data.

Authors:  B L Weusten; J M Roelofs; L M Akkermans; G P Van Berge-Henegouwen; A J Smout
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring--a randomized trial.

Authors:  W-M Wong; J Bautista; R Dekel; I B Malagon; I Tuchinsky; C Green; R Dickman; R Esquivel; R Fass
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 8.171

10.  Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system.

Authors:  John E Pandolfino; Joel E Richter; Tina Ours; Jason M Guardino; Jennifer Chapman; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 10.864

  10 in total
  20 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.  Capsule pH monitoring: is wireless more?

Authors:  R H Holloway
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  A novel placement method of the Bravo wireless pH monitoring capsule for measuring intragastric pH.

Authors:  Jae Hyuck Chang; Myung Gyu Choi; Dong-Seok Yim; Yu Kyung Cho; Jae Myung Park; In Seok Lee; Sang Woo Kim; In Sik Chung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2008-07-23       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  New esophageal function testing (impedance, Bravo pH monitoring, and high-resolution manometry): clinical relevance.

Authors:  Jason A Wilson; Marcelo F Vela
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2008-06

Review 5.  Gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Kwong Ming Fock; Choo Hean Poh
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 7.527

6.  Wireless esophageal pH capsule for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a multicenter clinical study.

Authors:  Xiao-Jun Yang; Tian Gan; Lei Wang; Zhuan Liao; Xiao-Hong Tao; Wei Shen; Xiao-Yan Zhao
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Prolapse gastropathy syndrome may be a predictor of pathologic acid reflux.

Authors:  Jin-Soo Kim; Hyung-Keun Kim; Young-Seok Cho; Hiun-Suk Chae; Byung-Wook Kim; Jin-Il Kim; Sok-Won Han; Kyu-Yong Choi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-09-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  48-Hour pH monitoring increases the risk of false positive studies when the capsule is prematurely passed.

Authors:  Atif Iqbal; Yong Kwon Lee; Michelle Vitamvas; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Bravo (wireless) ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring: how do day 1 and day 2 results compare?

Authors:  Matthew L Bechtold; Jason-Scott L Holly; Klaus Thaler; John B Marshall
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  BRAVO esophageal pH monitoring: more cost-effective than empiric medical therapy for suspected gastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  Cheguevara Afaneh; Veronica Zoghbi; Brendan M Finnerty; Anna Aronova; David Kleiman; Thomas Ciecierega; Carl Crawford; Thomas J Fahey; Rasa Zarnegar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.