Literature DB >> 27554638

Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance on pH-impedance monitoring predicts reflux burden and symptomatic outcome in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

A Patel1, D Wang1, N Sainani1, G S Sayuk1, C P Gyawali2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), a novel pH-impedance metric, may be a surrogate marker of reflux burden. AIM: To assess the predictive value of MNBI on symptomatic outcomes after anti-reflux therapy.
METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort study, pH-impedance studies performed over a 5-year period were reviewed. Baseline impedance was extracted from six channels at three stable nocturnal 10-min time periods, and averaged to yield MNBI. Distal and proximal oesophageal MNBI values were calculated by averaging MNBI values at 3, 5, 7 and 9 cm, and 15 and 17 cm respectively. Symptomatic outcomes were measured as changes in global symptom severity (GSS, rated on 100-mm visual analogue scales) on prospective follow-up after medical or surgical anti-reflux therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed the predictive value of MNBI on symptomatic outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 266 patients, 135 (50.8%) were tested off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and formed the study cohort (52.1 ± 1.1 years, 63.7% F). The 59 with elevated acid exposure time (AET) had lower composite and distal MNBI values than those with physiological AET (P < 0.0001), but similar proximal MNBI (P = 0.62). Linear AET negatively correlated with distal MNBI, both individually and collectively (Pearson's r = -0.5, P < 0.001), but not proximal MNBI (Pearson's r = 0, P = 0.72). After prospective follow-up (94 patients were followed up for 3.1 ± 0.2 years), univariate and multivariate regression models showed that distal MNBI, but not proximal MNBI, was independently predictive of linear GSS improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Distal oesophageal MNBI negatively correlates with AET and, when assessed off PPI therapy, is independently predictive of symptomatic improvement following anti-reflux therapy.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27554638      PMCID: PMC5026610          DOI: 10.1111/apt.13777

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0269-2813            Impact factor:   8.171


  23 in total

Review 1.  Review article: acidity and volume of the refluxate in the genesis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms.

Authors:  D Sifrim; R Mittal; R Fass; A Smout; D Castell; J Tack; H Gregersen
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 8.171

Review 2.  Clinical esophageal pH recording: a technical review for practice guideline development.

Authors:  P J Kahrilas; E M Quigley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Normal values of pharyngeal and esophageal 24-hour pH impedance in individuals on and off therapy and interobserver reproducibility.

Authors:  Frank Zerbib; Sabine Roman; Stanislas Bruley Des Varannes; Guillaume Gourcerol; Benoît Coffin; Alain Ropert; Patricia Lepicard; François Mion
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Impairment of chemical clearance and mucosal integrity distinguishes hypersensitive esophagus from functional heartburn.

Authors:  Marzio Frazzoni; Nicola de Bortoli; Leonardo Frazzoni; Manuele Furnari; Irene Martinucci; Salvatore Tolone; Andrea Farioli; Santino Marchi; Lorenzo Fuccio; Vincenzo Savarino; Edoardo Savarino
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 7.527

5.  Mucosal impedance discriminates GERD from non-GERD conditions.

Authors:  Fehmi Ates; Elif Saritas Yuksel; Tina Higginbotham; James C Slaughter; Jerry Mabary; Robert T Kavitt; C Gaelyn Garrett; David Francis; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Esophageal acid exposure decreases intraluminal baseline impedance levels.

Authors:  Boudewijn F Kessing; Albert J Bredenoord; Pim W Weijenborg; Gerrit J M Hemmink; Clara M Loots; A J P M Smout
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-08-16       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 7.  Systematic review: role of acid, weakly acidic and weakly alkaline reflux in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  G E Boeckxstaens; A Smout
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 8.171

8.  Clinical, but not oesophageal pH-impedance, profiles predict response to proton pump inhibitors in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Frank Zerbib; Kafia Belhocine; Mireille Simon; Maylis Capdepont; François Mion; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Jean-Paul Galmiche
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  Esophageal intraluminal baseline impedance differentiates gastroesophageal reflux disease from functional heartburn.

Authors:  Arne Kandulski; Jochen Weigt; Carlos Caro; Doerthe Jechorek; Thomas Wex; Peter Malfertheiner
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 11.382

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
  29 in total

Review 1.  New Developments in the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux.

Authors:  Yan Jiang; John O Clarke
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-02-19

Review 2.  Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of GERD: New Tricks for an Old Disease.

Authors:  Rishi D Naik; Lauren Evers; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03

3.  Development and Validation of a Mucosal Impedance Contour Analysis System to Distinguish Esophageal Disorders.

Authors:  Dhyanesh A Patel; Tina Higginbotham; James C Slaughter; Muhammad Aslam; Elif Yuksel; David Katzka; C Prakash Gyawali; Melina Mashi; John Pandolfino; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Higher Esophageal Symptom Burden in Obese Subjects Results From Increased Esophageal Acid Exposure and Not From Dysmotility.

Authors:  Benjamin D Rogers; Amit Patel; Dan Wang; Gregory S Sayuk; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 5.  Expert consensus document: Advances in the physiological assessment and diagnosis of GERD.

Authors:  Edoardo Savarino; Albert J Bredenoord; Mark Fox; John E Pandolfino; Sabine Roman; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 6.  Impedance-pH Monitoring for Diagnosis of Reflux Disease: New Perspectives.

Authors:  Marzio Frazzoni; Nicola de Bortoli; Leonardo Frazzoni; Salvatore Tolone; Vincenzo Savarino; Edoardo Savarino
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  Mean nocturnal baseline impedance and endoscopic mucosal impedance measurements in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis: a new tool for follow up and management?

Authors:  Sergeev Ilia; Velosa Monica; Sifrim Daniel
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-07-15

Review 8.  Wireless 24, 48, and 96 Hour or Impedance or Oropharyngeal Prolonged pH Monitoring: Which Test, When, and Why for GERD?

Authors:  Soojong Chae; Joel E Richter
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2018-09-26

Review 9.  Diagnostic Investigations of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Who and When to Refer and for What Test?

Authors:  Arne Kandulski; Lukas Moleda; Martina Müller-Schilling
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2018-04-20

10.  Value of adjunctive evidence from MII-pH monitoring and high-resolution manometry in inconclusive GERD patients with AET 4-6.

Authors:  Ya Jiang; Liuqin Jiang; Bixing Ye; Lin Lin
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 4.409

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.