Literature DB >> 26033511

pH Impedance vs. traditional pH monitoring in clinical practice: an outcome study.

Delia Pugliese1, Aurelio Mauro2, Dario Consonni3, Ivana Bravi2, Andrea Tenca2, Alessandra Elvevi2, Dario Conte2, Roberto Penagini2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The addition of impedance to 24-h pH monitoring has allowed detection of weakly acidic reflux, but the extent to which pH-impedance (pH-MII) monitoring improves outcomes is unknown.
METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Patients referred for pH or pH-MII monitoring completed a standardized questionnaire on improvement in the dominant symptom, their satisfaction, and treatment at 3 and 12 months after the test during a telephone interview.
RESULTS: A total of 184 patients (mean age, 52 years, range, 19-82 years; 35 % with typical symptoms; and 89 % tested off therapy) completed pH (n = 92) or pH-MII monitoring (n = 92) over a period of 15 months. The two arms were similar in terms of demographic, clinical, and endoscopic variables. Ten patients in the pH-MII arm showed evidence of weakly acidic reflux disease. There was no difference in the percentage of patients in the pH and pH-MII monitoring arms who experienced improvement in their dominant symptom after 3 (58 vs. 63 %; p = 0.621) or 12 months (66 vs. 70 %; p = 0.234), and the same was true for patient satisfaction. There were also no between-group difference in the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after 3 (63 vs. 68.5 %; p = 0.437) or 12 months (47 vs. 60.5 %; p = 0.051). PPIs were prescribed more frequently after a positive test (p < 0.001) although they were used by 45.6 % of the negative patients. Only one patient underwent fundoplication.
CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients undergoing pH-MII monitoring experience a positive outcome, similarly to what occurs after traditional pH monitoring. Physicians often pay little attention to the test results, especially if they are negative.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastroesophageal reflux; Impedance-pH monitoring; Patient’s outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26033511     DOI: 10.1007/s00535-015-1090-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0944-1174            Impact factor:   7.527


  25 in total

1.  Proton pump inhibitor responders who are not confirmed as GERD patients with impedance and pH monitoring: who are they?

Authors:  N de Bortoli; I Martinucci; E Savarino; M Bellini; A J Bredenoord; R Franchi; L Bertani; M Furnari; V Savarino; C Blandizzi; S Marchi
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.598

2.  Long-term clinical course of extra-oesophageal manifestations in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A prospective follow-up analysis based on the ProGERD study.

Authors:  D Jaspersen; J Labenz; S N Willich; M Kulig; M Nocon; A Leodolter; T Lind; W Meyer-Sabellek; M Vieth; M Stolte; P Malfertheiner
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 4.088

3.  American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: guidelines on the use of esophageal pH recording.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Nonacid reflux in patients with chronic cough on acid-suppressive therapy.

Authors:  Radu Tutuian; Inder Mainie; Amit Agrawal; David Adams; Donald O Castell
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring to select patients with persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication.

Authors:  I Mainie; R Tutuian; A Agrawal; D Adams; D O Castell
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  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

7.  Diagnostic yield of 96-h wireless pH monitoring and usefulness in patients' management.

Authors:  Ausilia Grigolon; Dario Consonni; Ivana Bravi; Andrea Tenca; Roberto Penagini
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring and symptom analysis in GERD: a study in patients off and on therapy.

Authors:  Frank Zerbib; Sabine Roman; Alain Ropert; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Philippe Pouderoux; Ulriikka Chaput; François Mion; Eric Vérin; Jean-Paul Galmiche; Daniel Sifrim
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-07-18       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Weakly acidic reflux in patients with chronic unexplained cough during 24 hour pressure, pH, and impedance monitoring.

Authors:  D Sifrim; L Dupont; K Blondeau; X Zhang; J Tack; J Janssens
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Use of pH-impedance testing to evaluate patients with suspected extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Ashish Malhotra; James W Freston; Khalid Aziz
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.062

View more
  1 in total

1.  Yield of prolonged wireless pH monitoring in achalasia patients successfully treated with pneumatic dilation.

Authors:  Aurelio Mauro; Marianna Franchina; Alessandra Elvevi; Delia Pugliese; Andrea Tenca; Dario Conte; Roberto Penagini
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 4.623

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.