Literature DB >> 23555169

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with conscious sedation does not interfere with catheter-based 24-h pH monitoring.

Yung-Kuan Tsou1, Jau-Min Lien, Chin-Kuo Chen, Cheng-Hui Lin, Hsing-Yu Chen, Mu-Shien Lee.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the impact of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with conscious sedation on the subsequent 24-h catheter-based pH monitoring.
METHODS: Fifty patients with extra-esophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease undergoing ambulatory dual-probe 24-h pH monitoring were enrolled from March 2010 to August 2011. All of the data were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Thirty-six patients (72%, group A) underwent pH monitoring shortly after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with conscious sedation, and 14 patients (28%, group B) underwent pH monitoring without conscious sedation. The 24-h pH data from two time periods were analyzed: the first 4 h (Period I) and the remaining time of the study (Period II).
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 49.6 ± 12.5 years; 20 patients (40%) were men. The baseline data, including age, sex, body mass index, reflux esophagitis, the Reflux Symptom Index, and the Reflux Findings Score, were comparable between the two groups. The percentage of total time with a pH < 4 and the frequency of acid reflux during Period I were not significantly different between the two groups, as measured using both pharyngeal (0.03% ± 0.10% vs 0.07% ± 0.16%, P = 0.32; and 0.07 ± 0.23 episodes/h vs 0.18 ± 0.47 episodes/h, P = 0.33, respectively) and esophageal probes (0.96% ± 1.89% vs 0.42% ± 0.81%, P = 0.59; and 0.74 ± 1.51 episodes/h vs 0.63 ± 0.97 episodes/h, P = 0.49, respectively). The percentage of total time with a pH < 4 and the frequency of acid reflux were also not significantly different between Periods I and II in group A patients, as measured using both pharyngeal (0.03% ± 0.10% vs 0.23% ± 0.85%, P = 0.21; and 0.07 ± 0.23 episodes/h vs 0.29 ± 0.98 episodes/h, P = 0.22, respectively) and esophageal probes (0.96% ± 1.89% vs 1.11% ± 2.57%, P = 0.55; and 0.74 ± 1.51 episodes/h vs 0.81 ± 1.76 episodes/h, P = 0.55, respectively).
CONCLUSION: EGD with conscious sedation does not interfere with the results of subsequent 24-h pH monitoring in patients with extra-esophageal symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conscious sedation; Esophagogastroduodenoscopy; Extraesophageal symptoms; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; pH monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23555169      PMCID: PMC3607757          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i11.1805

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  23 in total

1.  Laryngopharyngeal reflux: Current concepts in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Catherine J Rees; Peter C Belafsky
Journal:  Int J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.484

2.  Wireless esophageal pH monitoring: new technique means new questions.

Authors:  Yasser M Bhat; Kevin M McGrath; Klaus Bielefeldt
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.062

Review 3.  Laryngopharyngeal reflux: current concepts and questions.

Authors:  Reena Gupta; Robert Thayer Sataloff
Journal:  Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.064

4.  Identification and localization of opioid receptors in the opossum lower esophageal sphincter.

Authors:  S Rattan; R K Goyal
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 4.030

5.  The effects of premedication drugs on the lower oesophageal high pressure zone and reflux status of rhesus monkeys and man.

Authors:  A W Hall; A R Moossa; J Clark; G R Cooley; D B Skinner
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1975-05       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS).

Authors:  P C Belafsky; G N Postma; J A Koufman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Predicting patient tolerance of endoscopy with conscious sedation.

Authors:  Simon Hazeldine; Lin Fritschi; Geoff Forbes
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  Reflux profile of Chinese gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring.

Authors:  Ying L Xiao; Jin K Lin; Ting K Cheung; Nina Y H Wong; Ivan F N Hung; Benjamin C Y Wong; Sui Peng; An J Wang; Min H Chen
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.029

Review 9.  Laryngopharyngeal reflux is different from classic gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  James A Koufman
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.697

10.  Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI).

Authors:  Peter C Belafsky; Gregory N Postma; James A Koufman
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.009

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.