AIM: To investigate if differences exist for patients' gastroesophageal reflux as measured by the Bravo ambulatory esophageal pH system between d 1 and d 2. METHODS: A retrospective study of 27 consecutive adult patients who underwent Bravo esophageal pH monitoring was performed. Patients underwent EGD under IV conscious sedation prior to Bravo placement. Acid reflux variables and symptom scores for d 1 were compared to d 2. RESULTS: The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were 90.4 microg and 7.2 mg, respectively. D 1 results were significantly more elevated than d 2 with respect to total time pH < 4, upright position reflux, and mean number of long refluxes. No statistical difference was noted between the two days for supine position reflux, number of refluxes, duration of longest reflux, episodes of heartburn, and symptom score. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing Bravo esophageal pH monitoring in association with EGD and moderate conscious sedation experience significantly more acid reflux on d 1 compared to d 2. The IV sedation may be responsible for the increased reflux on d 1. Performed this way, 48-h Bravo results may not be entirely representative of the patients' true GE reflux profile.
AIM: To investigate if differences exist for patients' gastroesophageal reflux as measured by the Bravo ambulatory esophageal pH system between d 1 and d 2. METHODS: A retrospective study of 27 consecutive adult patients who underwent Bravo esophageal pH monitoring was performed. Patients underwent EGD under IV conscious sedation prior to Bravo placement. Acid reflux variables and symptom scores for d 1 were compared to d 2. RESULTS: The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were 90.4 microg and 7.2 mg, respectively. D 1 results were significantly more elevated than d 2 with respect to total time pH < 4, upright position reflux, and mean number of long refluxes. No statistical difference was noted between the two days for supine position reflux, number of refluxes, duration of longest reflux, episodes of heartburn, and symptom score. CONCLUSION:Patients undergoing Bravo esophageal pH monitoring in association with EGD and moderate conscious sedation experience significantly more acid reflux on d 1 compared to d 2. The IV sedation may be responsible for the increased reflux on d 1. Performed this way, 48-h Bravo results may not be entirely representative of the patients' true GE reflux profile.
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
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
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
Authors: Daniel Tseng; Adnan Z Rizvi; M Brian Fennerty; Blair A Jobe; Brian S Diggs; Brett C Sheppard; Steven C Gross; Lee L Swanstrom; Nicole B White; Ralph W Aye; John G Hunter Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Eun Soo Kim; Ho Young Lee; Yoo Jin Lee; Bo Ram Min; Jae Hyuk Choi; Kyung Sik Park; Kwang Bum Cho; Byoung Kuk Jang; Woo Jin Chung; Jae Seok Hwang Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 5.742
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: 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
Authors: Shahin Ayazi; Jeffrey A Hagen; Joerg Zehetner; Farzaneh Banki; Florian Augustin; Ali Ayazi; Steven R DeMeester; Daniel S Oh; Helen J Sohn; John C Lipham; Tom R DeMeester Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 4.584