Literature DB >> 21046245

The effect of antisecretory therapy and study duration on ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

Vladimir M Kushnir1, Gregory S Sayuk, C Prakash Gyawali.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conventional catheter-based and wireless pH monitoring continue to be widely used for the evaluation of GERD symptoms despite the emergence of pH-impedance monitoring. GOALS: We sought to identify patient- and test-related factors predicting objective GERD parameters on catheter-based and wireless pH monitoring. STUDY: Ambulatory pH studies in 2,067 subjects (50.4 ± 0.3 years, 66.3% female) were assessed for presenting symptoms, antireflux therapy status, test characteristics, distal esophageal total acid exposure time (AET), symptom index (SI), and symptom-reflux association (Ghillebert probability estimate, GPE). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of GERD evidence, both off and on antireflux therapy.
RESULTS: Catheter-based pH monitoring was performed in 77.6%, and 90.1% of the studies were performed off antireflux therapy. The likelihood of finding GERD evidence was significantly higher off therapy (65.8 vs. 21.4% on therapy, p < 0.0001); this held true for both strong GERD evidence (elevated AET and positive GPE) and elevated AET alone. The SI did not complement AET and GPE. Extended pH recording with the wireless technique consistently increased diagnostic yield. On multivariate logistic regression, the status of antireflux therapy and frequency of symptoms dictated finding of GERD evidence, and yields were highest for perceptive symptoms (heartburn, chest pain, and cough).
CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory pH testing off antireflux therapy improves detection of all degrees of GERD evidence. pH testing provides highest yields with frequent perceptive symptoms and least with isolated regurgitation and ENT symptoms. Extending pH-recording with wireless monitoring uniformly augments yield.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21046245      PMCID: PMC3835754          DOI: 10.1007/s10620-010-1443-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  22 in total

1.  Determinants of perception of heartburn and regurgitation.

Authors:  A J Bredenoord; B L A M Weusten; W L Curvers; R Timmer; A J P M Smout
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-08-24       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Increasing yield also increases false positives and best serves to exclude GERD.

Authors:  Jason Connor; Joel Richter
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data.

Authors:  B L Weusten; J M Roelofs; L M Akkermans; G P Van Berge-Henegouwen; A J Smout
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  The role of esophageal pH monitoring in symptomatic patients on PPI therapy.

Authors:  Samer Charbel; Farah Khandwala; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  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

6.  The burden of gastrointestinal and liver diseases, 2006.

Authors:  Nicholas J Shaheen; Richard A Hansen; Douglas R Morgan; Lisa M Gangarosa; Yehuda Ringel; Michelle T Thiny; Mark W Russo; Robert S Sandler
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-07-18       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  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

8.  Abnormal GERD parameters on ambulatory pH monitoring predict therapeutic success in noncardiac chest pain.

Authors:  Vladimir M Kushnir; Gregory S Sayuk; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Wireless pH monitoring in patients with non-cardiac chest pain.

Authors:  Chandra Prakash; Ray E Clouse
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Ambulatory 24 hour intraoesophageal pH and pressure recordings v provocation tests in the diagnosis of chest pain of oesophageal origin.

Authors:  G Ghillebert; J Janssens; G Vantrappen; F Nevens; J Piessens
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  10 in total

1.  GERD phenotypes from pH-impedance monitoring predict symptomatic outcomes on prospective evaluation.

Authors:  A Patel; G S Sayuk; V M Kushnir; W W Chan; C P Gyawali
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2015-12-20       Impact factor: 3.598

2.  High resolution manometry patterns distinguish acid sensitivity in non-cardiac chest pain.

Authors:  V M Kushnir; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 3.598

3.  Assessment of concordance of symptom reflux association tests in ambulatory pH monitoring.

Authors:  V M Kushnir; A Sathyamurthy; J Drapekin; S Gaddam; G S Sayuk; C P Gyawali
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 8.171

Review 4.  The role of oesophageal physiological testing in the assessment of noncardiac chest pain.

Authors:  Henriette Heinrich; Rami Sweis
Journal:  Ther Adv Chronic Dis       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 5.091

5.  Early referral for esophageal pH monitoring is more cost-effective than prolonged empiric trials of proton-pump inhibitors for suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  David A Kleiman; Toni Beninato; Brian P Bosworth; Laurent Brunaud; Thomas Ciecierega; Carl V Crawford; Brian G Turner; Thomas J Fahey; Rasa Zarnegar
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Acid-based parameters on pH-impedance testing predict symptom improvement with medical management better than impedance parameters.

Authors:  Amit Patel; Gregory S Sayuk; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for oesophageal manometry and oesophageal reflux monitoring.

Authors:  Nigel J Trudgill; Daniel Sifrim; Rami Sweis; Mark Fullard; Kumar Basu; Mimi McCord; Michael Booth; John Hayman; Guy Boeckxstaens; Brian T Johnston; Nicola Ager; John De Caestecker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 8.  Diagnostic yield of ambulatory oesophageal studies on versus off proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daphne Ang; Qishi Zheng; Luming Shi; Jan Tack
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 4.623

9.  Juice Test for Identification of Nonerosive Reflux Disease in Heartburn Patients.

Authors:  Michel R Fernandes; Marina De Oliveira; Sidia M Callegari-Jacques; Gissele V R Gonçalves; Fernando Fornari
Journal:  J Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.924

10.  The Rome IV versus Rome III criteria for heartburn diagnosis: A comparative study.

Authors:  Mengyu Zhang; Minhu Chen; Sui Peng; Yinglian Xiao
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 4.623

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.