Literature DB >> 23232999

Early referral for 24-h esophageal pH monitoring may prevent unnecessary treatment with acid-reducing medications.

David A Kleiman1, Matthew J Sporn, Toni Beninato, Yasmin Metz, Carl Crawford, Thomas J Fahey, Rasa Zarnegar.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) affects nearly 25 % of adults; however, an objective diagnosis is rarely established. We hypothesized that patients' symptoms and response to acid-reducing therapy are poor predictors of the outcome of 24-h esophageal pH monitoring.
METHODS: A review of 24-h esophageal pH monitoring studies performed at an ambulatory tertiary care center between 2004 and 2011 was performed. Demographics, type of GERD symptoms, and duration and response to acid-reducing medications before referral for pH monitoring were collected. DeMeester score, symptom sensitivity index (SSI), and symptom index (SI) were tabulated and compared with the patients' symptoms and response to medical therapy.
RESULTS: One hundred patients were included. Of all reported symptoms, only heartburn was more common in patients with positive DeMeester scores, but there were no correlations between any symptoms and SSI or SI scores. Sixty-nine percent of patients with esophageal symptoms had a positive DeMeester score compared with only 29 % of patients with extraesophageal symptoms (P < 0.01). Esophageal symptoms and endoscopic evidence of GERD significantly increased the likelihood of having a positive DeMeester score, but they had no influence on SSI or SI scores. There was no correlation between response to acid-reducing medications and DeMeester, SSI, or SI scores. A total of 536 person-years of acid-reducing medications were prescribed to the study population, of which 151 (28 %) were prescribed to patients who had a negative pH study.
CONCLUSIONS: Extraesophageal symptoms and response to empiric trials of acid-reducing medications are poor predictors of the presence of GERD and the DeMeester score is more likely to identify GERD in patients who met other empiric diagnostic criteria than SSI or SI. Early referral for 24-h esophageal pH monitoring may avoid lengthy periods of unnecessary medical therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23232999      PMCID: PMC3996557          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2602-z

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


  47 in total

Review 1.  Symptom association analysis in ambulatory gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring.

Authors:  A J Bredenoord; B L A M Weusten; A J P M Smout
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Many patients continue using proton pump inhibitors after negative results from tests for reflux disease.

Authors:  Andrew J Gawron; Jami Rothe; Angela J Fought; Anita Fareeduddin; Erin Toto; Lubomyr Boris; Peter J Kahrilas; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 11.382

3.  Omeprazole does not reduce gastroesophageal reflux: new insights using multichannel intraluminal impedance technology.

Authors:  Anand P Tamhankar; Jeffrey H Peters; Giussepe Portale; Chih-Cheng Hsieh; Jeffrey A Hagen; Cedric G Bremner; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Forty-eight-hour pH monitoring increases sensitivity in detecting abnormal esophageal acid exposure.

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

5.  Spectrum of esophageal motility disorders: implications for diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Marco G Patti; Maria V Gorodner; Carlos Galvani; Pietro Tedesco; Piero M Fisichella; James W Ostroff; Karen C Bagatelos; Lawrence W Way
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2005-05

Review 6.  Long-term acid control and proton pump inhibitors: interactions and safety issues in perspective.

Authors:  J W Freston
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 7.  Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

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

8.  Modern diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Authors:  J P Galmiche; C Scarpignato
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  1998 Sep-Oct

9.  Increased prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Authors:  R W Tobin; C E Pope; C A Pellegrini; M J Emond; J Sillery; G Raghu
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 10.  Recognizing atypical manifestations of GERD. Asthma, chest pain, and otolaryngologic disorders may be due to reflux.

Authors:  V R Mujica; S S Rao
Journal:  Postgrad Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.840

View more
  3 in total

1.  A budget impact analysis of a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for the treatment of medication-refractory mechanical gastroesophageal reflux disease: a United States payer perspective.

Authors:  John Pandolfino; John Lipham; Amarpreet Chawla; Nicole Ferko; Andrew Hogan; Rana A Qadeer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  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

3.  Importance of esophageal manometry and pH monitoring for the evaluation of otorhinolaryngologic (ENT) manifestations of GERD. A multicenter study.

Authors:  Fernando A M Herbella; Ciro Andolfi; Yalini Vigneswaran; Marco G Patti; Bruno R Pinna
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 3.452

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.