OBJECTIVES:Esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless pH capsule has been suggested to generate less adverse symptoms resulting in improved patient acceptance compared with the catheter-based method although evidence to support this assumption is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the subjective experience of patients undergoing both techniques for esophageal pH monitoring. METHODS: Using a randomized study design, patients referred for esophageal pH testing underwent both wireless and traditional catheter-based 24-h pH recording with a 7-day interval. The wireless pH capsule was placed during endoscopy and followed by 48-h pH recording. All patients answered a questionnaire, including a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), which described the perceived severity of symptoms and the degree of interference with normal daily activities during the pH tests. RESULTS:Thirty-one patients, 16 women and 15 men, were included in the analysis. The severity of all adverse symptoms associated with the wireless technique was significantly lower compared with the catheter-based technique (median VAS 2.1 vs 5.1, P < 0.001). Wireless pH recording was associated with less interference with off-work activities and normal daily life, median VAS 0.6 and 0.7 compared with 5.0 and 5.7, respectively, for the catheter-based technique (P < 0.0001). Patients actively working during both tests reported less interference with normal work during the capsule-based test than during the catheter-based pH test (median VAS 0.3 vs 6.8, P= 0.005). Twenty-seven patients (87%) stated that, if they had to undergo esophageal pH monitoring again, they preferred the wireless test over the catheter-based pH test (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized study showed that a significant majority of patients undergoing esophageal pH monitoring preferred the wireless pH capsule over the traditional catheter-based technique because of less adverse symptoms and less interference with normal daily life.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless pH capsule has been suggested to generate less adverse symptoms resulting in improved patient acceptance compared with the catheter-based method although evidence to support this assumption is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the subjective experience of patients undergoing both techniques for esophageal pH monitoring. METHODS: Using a randomized study design, patients referred for esophageal pH testing underwent both wireless and traditional catheter-based 24-h pH recording with a 7-day interval. The wireless pH capsule was placed during endoscopy and followed by 48-h pH recording. All patients answered a questionnaire, including a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), which described the perceived severity of symptoms and the degree of interference with normal daily activities during the pH tests. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients, 16 women and 15 men, were included in the analysis. The severity of all adverse symptoms associated with the wireless technique was significantly lower compared with the catheter-based technique (median VAS 2.1 vs 5.1, P < 0.001). Wireless pH recording was associated with less interference with off-work activities and normal daily life, median VAS 0.6 and 0.7 compared with 5.0 and 5.7, respectively, for the catheter-based technique (P < 0.0001). Patients actively working during both tests reported less interference with normal work during the capsule-based test than during the catheter-based pH test (median VAS 0.3 vs 6.8, P= 0.005). Twenty-seven patients (87%) stated that, if they had to undergo esophageal pH monitoring again, they preferred the wireless test over the catheter-based pH test (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized study showed that a significant majority of patients undergoing esophageal pH monitoring preferred the wireless pH capsule over the traditional catheter-based technique because of less adverse symptoms and less interference with normal daily life.
Authors: George Triadafilopoulos; Thomas Zikos; Kirsten Regalia; Irene Sonu; Nielsen Q Fernandez-Becker; Linda Nguyen; Monica Christine R Nandwani; John O Clarke Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Vineet Korrapati; Jay P Babich; Anil Balani; James H Grendell; Kavita R Kongara Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 5.742
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
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