Literature DB >> 26537906

BRAVO esophageal pH monitoring: more cost-effective than empiric medical therapy for suspected gastroesophageal reflux.

Cheguevara Afaneh1, Veronica Zoghbi2, Brendan M Finnerty2, Anna Aronova2, David Kleiman2, Thomas Ciecierega3, Carl Crawford4, Thomas J Fahey2, Rasa Zarnegar2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Early referral for catheter-based esophageal pH monitoring is more cost-effective than empiric proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We hypothesize that BRAVO wireless pH monitoring will also demonstrate substantial cost-savings compared to empiric PPI therapy, given its superior sensitivity and comfort.
METHODS: We reviewed 100 consecutive patients who underwent wireless pH monitoring for suspected GERD at our institution. A cost model and a cost equivalence calculation were generated. Cost-saving analyses were performed for both esophageal and extraesophageal symptoms.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were available for analysis. Median PPI use prior to referral was 215 weeks (range 0-520). Forty-three patients (49 %) had BRAVO results diagnosing GERD; 98 % of these had esophageal symptoms. Patients with negative BRAVO studies had a median of 113 (0-520) weeks of unnecessary PPI therapy. Cost-savings ranged from $1048 to $15,853 per patient, depending on sensitivity (75-95 %), PPI dosage, and brand. Maximum cost-savings occurred in patients with extraesophageal symptoms ($2948-$31,389 per patient). The PPI cost equivalence of BRAVO placement was 36 and 6 weeks for low- and high-dose therapy, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: BRAVO wireless pH testing is more cost-effective than prolonged empiric medical management for GERD and should be incorporated early in the treatment algorithm.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRAVO; Empiric therapy; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Proton-pump inhibitor; Wireless pH monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26537906     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4629-4

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


  23 in total

1.  Management of esophageal perforation after therapeutic endoscopy.

Authors:  Guido Costamagna; Michele Marchese
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2010-06

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.  Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part I: overall and upper gastrointestinal diseases.

Authors:  James E Everhart; Constance E Ruhl
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2009-01-03       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States.

Authors:  Robert S Sandler; James E Everhart; Mark Donowitz; Elizabeth Adams; Kelly Cronin; Clifford Goodman; Eric Gemmen; Shefali Shah; Aida Avdic; Robert Rubin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo).

Authors:  S Bruley des Varannes; F Mion; P Ducrotté; F Zerbib; P Denis; T Ponchon; R Thibault; J P Galmiche
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-04-20       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring--a randomized trial.

Authors:  W-M Wong; J Bautista; R Dekel; I B Malagon; I Tuchinsky; C Green; R Dickman; R Esquivel; R Fass
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 8.171

Review 7.  Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

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

8.  Patient acceptance and clinical impact of Bravo monitoring in patients with previous failed catheter-based studies.

Authors:  R Sweis; M Fox; R Anggiansah; A Anggiansah; K Basavaraju; R Canavan; T Wong
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2008-12-19       Impact factor: 8.171

9.  48-Hour pH monitoring increases the risk of false positive studies when the capsule is prematurely passed.

Authors:  Atif Iqbal; Yong Kwon Lee; Michelle Vitamvas; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Effects of age on the gastroesophageal junction, esophageal motility, and reflux disease.

Authors:  Jacqueline Lee; Angela Anggiansah; Roy Anggiansah; Alasdair Young; Terry Wong; Mark Fox
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  3 in total

1.  Use of Esophageal pH Monitoring to Minimize Proton-Pump Inhibitor Utilization in Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms.

Authors:  George Triadafilopoulos; Thomas Zikos; Kirsten Regalia; Irene Sonu; Nielsen Q Fernandez-Becker; Linda Nguyen; Monica Christine R Nandwani; John O Clarke
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Predictive Factors for Developing GERD After Sleeve Gastrectomy: Is Preoperative Endoscopy Necessary?

Authors:  Omar Bellorin; James C Senturk; Mariana Vigiola Cruz; Gregory Dakin; Cheguevara Afaneh
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Guides Proton Pump Inhibitor Discontinuation in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Melina Masihi; C Prakash Gyawali; Dustin A Carlson; Peter J Kahrilas; Billy Darren Nix; Anand Jain; Joseph R Triggs; Michael F Vaezi; Leila Kia; Alexander Kaizer; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 22.682

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.