Literature DB >> 20193899

Proximal esophageal pH monitoring: improved definition of normal values and determination of a composite pH score.

Shahin Ayazi1, Jeffrey A Hagen, Joerg Zehetner, Arzu Oezcelik, Emmanuele Abate, Geoffrey P Kohn, Helen J Sohn, John C Lipham, Steven R Demeester, Tom R Demeester.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with respiratory and laryngeal symptoms are commonly referred for evaluation of reflux disease as a potential cause. Dual-probe pH monitoring is often performed, although data on normal acid exposure in the proximal esophagus are limited because of the small number of normal subjects and inconsistent placement of the proximal pH sensor in relation to the upper esophageal sphincter. We measured proximal esophageal acid exposure using dual-probe pH and calculated a composite pH score in a large number of asymptomatic volunteers to better define normal values. STUDY
DESIGN: Eighty-one normal subjects free of reflux, laryngeal, or respiratory symptoms were recruited. All had video esophagraphy to exclude hiatal hernia. Esophageal pH monitoring was performed using 1 of 3 different dual-probe catheters with sensors spaced 10, 15, or 18 cm apart. The standard components of esophageal acid exposure were measured, excluding meal periods. A composite pH score for the proximal esophagus was calculated using these components.
RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 59 (49% male) subjects, with a median age of 27 years. All had normal distal esophageal acid exposure and no hiatal hernia. The 95(th) percentile values for the percent time the pH was < 4 for the total, upright, and supine periods were 0.9%, 1.2%, and 0.4%, respectively. The 95(th) percentile for the number of reflux episodes was 24 and for the calculated proximal esophageal composite pH score was 16.4.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of normal subjects, we have defined the normal values and calculated a composite pH score for proximal esophageal acid exposure. The total percent time pH < 4 was similar to previously published normal values, but the number of reflux episodes was greater. Copyright 2010 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20193899     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.12.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  12 in total

1.  Loss of alkalization in proximal esophagus: a new diagnostic paradigm for patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Authors:  Shahin Ayazi; Jeffrey A Hagen; Joerg Zehetner; Matt Lilley; Priyanka Wali; Florian Augustin; Arzu Oezcelik; Helen J Sohn; John C Lipham; Steven R Demeester; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-09-11       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Pharyngeal pH monitoring in gastrectomy patients - what do we really measure?

Authors:  Dirk Wilhelm; Alissa Jell; Hubertus Feussner; Roland M Schmid; Monther Bajbouj; Valentin Becker
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 4.623

3.  New aspects in the pathomechanism and diagnosis of the laryngopharyngeal reflux-clinical impact of laryngeal proton pumps and pharyngeal pH metry in extraesophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Valentin Becker; Romina Drabner; Simone Graf; Christoph Schlag; Simon Nennstiel; Anna Maria Buchberger; Roland M Schmid; Dieter Saur; Monther Bajbouj
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Pharyngeal pH monitoring better predicts a successful outcome for extraesophageal reflux symptoms after antireflux surgery.

Authors:  Stephanie G Worrell; Steven R DeMeester; Christina L Greene; Daniel S Oh; Jeffrey A Hagen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Karl Hermann Fuchs; Benjamin Babic; Wolfram Breithaupt; Bernard Dallemagne; Abe Fingerhut; Edgar Furnee; Frank Granderath; Peter Horvath; Peter Kardos; Rudolph Pointner; Edoardo Savarino; Maud Van Herwaarden-Lindeboom; Giovanni Zaninotto
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  First agreement analysis and day-to-day comparison of pharyngeal pH monitoring with pH/impedance monitoring in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Authors:  Valentin Becker; Simone Graf; Christoph Schlag; Tibor Schuster; Hubertus Feussner; Roland M Schmid; Monther Bajbouj
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 7.  ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Philip O Katz; Kerry B Dunbar; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Katarina B Greer; Rena Yadlapati; Stuart Jon Spechler
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Ratio between proximal/distal gastroesophageal reflux does not discriminate abnormal proximal reflux.

Authors:  Sebastião Carlos Pannocchia Neto; Fernando A M Herbella; Luciana C Silva; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  The In Vitro Effect of Acidic-Pepsin on Nuclear Factor KappaB Activation and Its Related Oncogenic Effect on Normal Human Hypopharyngeal Cells.

Authors:  Clarence T Sasaki; Julia Toman; Dimitra Vageli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Inhibition of NF-κB prevents the acidic bile-induced oncogenic mRNA phenotype, in human hypopharyngeal cells.

Authors:  Dimitra P Vageli; Sotirios G Doukas; Clarence T Sasaki
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-12-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.