Literature DB >> 20132427

To Bravo or not? A comparison of wireless esophageal pH monitoring and conventional pH catheter to evaluate non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease in a multiracial Asian cohort.

Daphne Ang1, Eng Kiong Teo, Tiing Leong Ang, Jeannie Ong, Choo Hean Poh, Jessica Tan, Kwong Ming Fock.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) constitutes the majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Esophageal pH monitoring is useful in distinguishing patients with NERD from functional heartburn. The gastroenterologist often faces the dilemma of choosing the most appropriate investigative modality. The wireless Bravo capsule allows prolonged 48 hour monitoring with improved patient tolerance, but concerns regarding its reduced sensitivity compared to conventional pH catheter have been raised. We compared the prevalence of high esophageal acid exposure and positive symptom correlation profiles (using the symptom index [SI] and symptom association probability [SAP]) in patients who underwent Bravo compared to patients who underwent conventional pH catheter, and evaluated the efficacy of Bravo monitoring in a multiracial Asian cohort.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all pH studies performed between January 2004 and February 2009 for patients with persistent reflux symptoms and a normal gastroscopy.
RESULTS: 66 (27 Male, 42.4 +/- 13.4 years) and 55 (24 Male, 47.1 +/- 13.3 years) patients underwent wireless and pH catheter evaluation respectively. "True NERD" (abnormal acid exposure) was diagnosed in 26 (39.4%) and 20 (36.4%) patients (pNS) while "acid-sensitive esophagus" (SI > or = 50% and/or SAP > or = 95%) occurred in 14 (21.2%) and 12 (21.8%) patients (pNS) using the wireless and pH catheter respectively. Extended recording time with Bravo led to an incremental diagnostic yield of 30%.
CONCLUSION: The wireless capsule was well tolerated. The diagnostic yield was similar using both modalities. With the increasing availability of impedance-pH technology, it is uncertain if devices that detect only acid-reflux events will be surpassed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20132427     DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-2980.2009.00409.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dig Dis        ISSN: 1751-2972            Impact factor:   2.325


  6 in total

1.  Treatment of Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Rishi D Naik; Matthew H Meyers; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2020-04

Review 2.  Esophageal testing: What we have so far.

Authors:  Nicola de Bortoli; Irene Martinucci; Lorenzo Bertani; Salvatore Russo; Riccardo Franchi; Manuele Furnari; Salvatore Tolone; Giorgia Bodini; Valeria Bolognesi; Massimo Bellini; Vincenzo Savarino; Santino Marchi; Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol       Date:  2016-02-15

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.  The value of early wireless esophageal pH monitoring in diagnosing functional heartburn in refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Eun-Young Park; Myung-Gyu Choi; Meonggi Baeg; Chul-Hyun Lim; Jinsu Kim; Yukyung Cho; Jaemyung Park; Inseok Lee; Sangwoo Kim; Kyuyong Choi
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Evaluation of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Using the Bravo Capsule pH System.

Authors:  Rona Marie A Lawenko; Yeong Yeh Lee
Journal:  J Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2016-01-31       Impact factor: 4.924

Review 6.  [Current possibilities and challenges in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux].

Authors:  D Runggaldier; J Hente; M Brockmann-Bauser; D Pohl; J E Bohlender
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 1.284

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.