Literature DB >> 17468923

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

Atif Iqbal1, Yong Kwon Lee, Michelle Vitamvas, Dmitry Oleynikov.   

Abstract

Ambulatory wireless 48-h esophageal pH monitoring (Bravo Medtronic, Shoreview, MN, USA) has been shown to be more sensitive in detecting abnormal esophageal acid exposure compared with transnasal 24-h pH probes. However, accurate interpretation of the wireless monitoring data is paramount when contemplating surgical intervention for those with gastroesophageal reflux disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of false-positive interpretations of this wireless monitoring data secondary to premature transit of the Bravo capsule into the stomach and subsequently into the duodenum prior to the completion of the 48-h study period. We reviewed 100 consecutive Bravo pH studies at our University Esophageal Motility Center. There were 58 women and 42 men included in our evaluation. Premature transit of the Bravo capsule into the stomach and subsequently into the small bowel was defined by a prolonged gastric pH phase with either evidence of alkalinization and no further reflux episodes or loss of communication with the Bravo capsule prior to the end of the 48-h data collection period. Of the 100 patients reviewed, 11% manifested evidence of early passage of the Bravo capsule resulting in a misinterpretation of the data as abnormal acid exposure. The mean time of inaccurate data after transit of the Bravo capsule was 18 h and 42 min. The mean length of time that the capsule was retained in the stomach prior to duodenal passage was 4 h. If the aforementioned data were included in the final interpretation of the study, it yielded a mean DeMeester score of 44.25 with a mean total time of pH <4 of 14.7% per case. Exclusion of the prolonged gastric phase from the final interpretation of each case resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mean total time the pH <4 (4.33 vs. 14.7%, p < 0.05) and the mean DeMeester score (12.81 vs. 44.25 p < 0.05). The mean time from the initiation of esophageal pH data to the passage of the Bravo capsule into the stomach was 15 h and 22 min. The observation mandates meticulous inspection of the pH tracing by the interpreting physician throughout the entirety of a 48-h study to identify premature transit of the capsule. Tracings that show prolonged acid exposure or loss of communication with the Bravo capsule should be screened for the capsule's possible early dislodgement and premature advancement into the stomach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17468923     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-007-0142-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  8 in total

1.  Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring by using a wireless system: a pilot study in Taiwan.

Authors:  Chia-Hung Tu; Yi-Chia Lee; Hsiu-Po Wang; Ming-Shiang Wu; Han-Mo Chiu; Jaw-Town Lin
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec

Review 2.  Bravo capsule pH monitoring.

Authors:  John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  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

4.  Performance, tolerability, and symptoms related to prolonged pH monitoring using the Bravo system in Mexico.

Authors:  José María Remes-Troche; Jorge Ibarra-Palomino; Ramon I Carmona-Sánchez; Miguel A Valdovinos
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 10.864

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

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

6.  Value of extended recording time with wireless pH monitoring in evaluating gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Chandra Prakash; Ray E Clouse
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  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

8.  Successful oesophageal pH monitoring with a catheter-free system.

Authors:  E M Ward; K R Devault; E P Bouras; M E Stark; H C Wolfsen; D M Davis; S I Nedrow; S R Achem
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 8.171

  8 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Early referral for 24-h esophageal pH monitoring may prevent unnecessary treatment with acid-reducing medications.

Authors:  David A Kleiman; Matthew J Sporn; Toni Beninato; Yasmin Metz; Carl Crawford; Thomas J Fahey; Rasa Zarnegar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  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

4.  Clinical utility and tolerability of JSPH-1 wireless esophageal pH monitoring system.

Authors:  Jun-Nan Li; Chun-Lun Liu; Xiao-Hong Tao
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 3.067

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.