Literature DB >> 15923666

Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different?

J E Pandolfino1, Q Zhang, M A Schreiner, S Ghosh, M P Roth, P J Kahrilas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study analysed the relative accuracy of the Bravo wireless and the Slimline catheter-Mark III Digitrapper pH systems in the detection of acid reflux events.
METHODS: Twenty five asymptomatic subjects were studied. A Bravo capsule was placed 6 cm above the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ), marked by an endoclip, and a Slimline pH catheter was placed 5 cm above the manometrically localised lower oesophageal sphincter. The distance between the SCJ and each pH electrode was measured fluoroscopically. An in vivo pH reference was established using swallows of orange juice (pH 3.88). Concurrent pH data from the two systems were analysed in Excel spreadsheets.
RESULTS: Significantly more acid reflux events were reported by the Digitrapper system than the Bravo system (117.0 v 41.8). This was not explained by electrode position as there was no difference in median distance between the SCJ and either pH electrode (7.25 cm v 7.08 cm). The dominant source of discrepancy between systems was inaccuracy in electrode calibration and, after adjustment using the in vivo orange juice pH measurement, the discrepancy improved by 40%. However, discrepancy still existed and was most pronounced with short reflux events (1-15 s for the catheter, 1-17 s for the Bravo) associated with minimal intraoesophageal acidity and poor concordance between systems.
CONCLUSION: Substantially more reflux events were reported by the Digitrapper system compared with the Bravo system; 40% of excess events were attributable to a flawed software scheme for electrode thermal calibration while most of the remainder were brief events with poor reproducibility between systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15923666      PMCID: PMC1774796          DOI: 10.1136/gut.2005.064691

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


  7 in total

1.  Does the intraesophageal pH probe accurately detect acid reflux? Simultaneous recording with two pH probes in humans.

Authors:  D W Murphy; Y Yuan; D O Castell
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Reproducibility of ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring.

Authors:  F Johnsson; B Joelsson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 3.  Technical aspects of intraluminal pH-metry in man: current status and recommendations.

Authors:  C Emde; A Garner; A L Blum
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 23.059

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.  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

Review 6.  Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas reflux.

Authors:  D Sifrim; D Castell; J Dent; P J Kahrilas
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Studies of acid exposure immediately above the gastro-oesophageal squamocolumnar junction: evidence of short segment reflux.

Authors:  J Fletcher; A Wirz; E Henry; K E L McColl
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 23.059

  7 in total
  14 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.  Radiographic demonstration of a wireless capsule pH monitor in the esophagus.

Authors:  Bruce R Javors; Rita Bukman
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 3.438

3.  Capsule pH monitoring: is wireless more?

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

4.  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 5.  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

6.  Ambulatory pH Monitoring: New Advances and Indications.

Authors:  Brant Lutsi; Ikuo Hirano
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2006-11

Review 7.  Advances in diagnostic testing for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Andrew J Gawron; Ikuo Hirano
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Evaluating outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness plication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with impedance monitoring.

Authors:  Daniel von Renteln; Arthur Schmidt; Bettina Riecken; Karel Caca
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  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

10.  Unsedated peroral wireless pH capsule placement vs. standard pH testing: a randomized study and cost analysis.

Authors:  Christopher N Andrews; Daniel C Sadowski; Adriana Lazarescu; Chad Williams; Emil Neshev; Martin Storr; Flora Au; Steven J Heitman
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.