Literature DB >> 17484003

Ambulatory pH: monitoring with a wireless system.

J H Schneider1, K M Kramer, A Königsrainer, F A Granderath.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Currently, pH monitoring is the gold standard for assessing esophageal acid exposure in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The shortcomings of 24-h pH-monitoring wires led to the development of a 48-h, catheter-free pH measurement system using the telemetry technique with the BRAVO capsule. This prospective study aimed to compare conventional 24-h pH monitoring with the BRAVO catheter-free pH-monitoring system in patients with GERD, patients after antireflux surgery, and a healthy control group.
METHODS: A sample of 133 participants were enrolled in the current trial and divided into three subgroups. Group 1 consisted of 10 healthy volunteers. Group 2 consisted of 123 patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux and endoscopic signs of esophagitis. Group 3 consisted of 43 GERD patients (extracted from group 2) who underwent a laparoscopic 360 degree "floppy" Nissen fundoplication. All the patients underwent both conventional 24-h pH monitoring and BRAVO catheter-free pH monitoring. The data for both methods were recorded and compared in line with the different patient groups regarding their validity and reliability. Additionally, all the patients were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire concerning their subjective perception of the two different methods.
RESULTS: Both the 24-h pH monitoring and the 48-h BRAVO catheter-free pH monitoring could be successfully performed for all the patients. During measurement, 122 of the patients (92%) continued working or performing daily activities. A significant difference could not be found regarding objective outcome between the two measurement methods in the three patient groups. The two methods showed comparable results in terms of data and measurement reliability. The validity also was comparable, with no significant differences within the groups. Concerning the patients' subjective estimation of the two methods, the patients reported reduced regular activities and a higher level of discomfort during measurement with the conventional 24-h pH-monitoring system (p < 0.001 and p< 0.0001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Both conventional 24-h pH monitoring and the 48-h catheter-free pH monitoring are valid and reliable recording devices for measuring esophageal acid exposure. However, from the patients' point of view, the BRAVO capsule affords less discomfort in the throat and allows more normal daily activities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17484003     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9301-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  14 in total

1.  Four-channel sleeve catheter for prolonged measurement of lower esophageal sphincter pressure.

Authors:  J H Schneider; P F Crookes; H D Becker
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: feasibility, safety and normal values in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Jörgen Wenner; Folke Johnsson; Jan Johansson; Stefan Oberg
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.423

Review 3.  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

4.  Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring of the distal esophagus. A quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux.

Authors:  L F Johnson; T R Demeester
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1974-10       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  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

6.  Significantly reduced acid detection at 10 centimeters compared to 5 centimeters above lower esophageal sphincter in patients with acid reflux.

Authors:  A Anggiansah; K Sumboonnanonda; J Wang; J Linsell; P Hale; W J Owen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Laparoscopic antireflux surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease: experience with 668 laparoscopic antireflux procedures.

Authors:  Frank Alexander Granderath; Thomas Kamolz; Ursula Maria Schweiger; Rudolph Pointner
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2002-05-30       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

Authors:  J E Richter
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1997-11-24       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  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.  Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility.

Authors:  J R Jamieson; H J Stein; T R DeMeester; L Bonavina; W Schwizer; R A Hinder; M Albertucci
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model of the minipig: data compilation and model implementation.

Authors:  Claudia Suenderhauf; Neil Parrott
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Technical problems produced by the Bravo pH test in nonerosive reflux disease patients.

Authors:  Andrés de Hoyos; Edgar Alain Esparza
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  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

4.  Non-acid gastroesophageal reflux measured using multichannel intraluminal impedance in older patients.

Authors:  Joachim H Schneider; Markus A Küper; Alfred Königsrainer; Björn L D M Brücher
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-09-12       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Multichannel intraluminal impedance measurement of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with different stages of morbid obesity.

Authors:  Juliane M E Schneider; Björn L D M Brücher; Markus Küper; Kathrin Saemann; Alfred Königsrainer; Joachim H Schneider
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 4.129

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.