Literature DB >> 2778567

Area under pH 4: advantages of a new parameter in the interpretation of esophageal pH monitoring data in infants.

Y Vandenplas1, A Franckx-Goossens, M Pipeleers-Marichal, M P Derde, L Sacré-Smits.   

Abstract

Twenty-four-hour continuous esophageal pH monitoring has become the preferred test to quantify acid gastroesophageal reflux. Agreement has been achieved that acid gastric content reflux into the esophagus constitutes a major cause of reflux esophagitis; we therefore calculated the "area under pH 4" (A) in 560 consecutive pH monitorings in infants 1-12 months old and related this parameter (A) to the reflux index (RI): RI less than 10%: A 185 +/- 295 (mean +/- 1 SD); RI 10-19%: A 1,046 +/- 1,206; RI 20-29%: A 1,967 +/- 2,038; RI 30-39%: A 3,307 +/- 2,955; RI greater than 40%: A 7,977 +/- 7,227. A higher RI is associated with a greater area under pH 4 (p less than 0.001); the high SD obtained in each group, however, illustrates the great variability in surface (or acidity of the reflux episodes) in all groups. Esophagoscopy and biopsy were performed in 112 infants (20%). Specificity in the prediction of (mild) esophagitis was higher for the area under pH 4 (88%) compared with the RI (50%). The sensitivity of both parameters was comparable (96 versus 93%). Our results strongly suggest that in young infants, the acidity of the reflux episodes (the area under pH 4) is a determining factor in the prediction of esophagitis. These data need to be confirmed by more studies before general application of this parameter can be advised.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2778567

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr        ISSN: 0277-2116            Impact factor:   2.839


  9 in total

1.  [Laryngectomised patients with voice prostheses: influence of supra-esophageal reflux on voice quality and quality of life].

Authors:  K J Lorenz; L Grieser; T Ehrhart; H Maier
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  [Determination of normal values of extraesophageal reflux in 24-h two-channel pH testing].

Authors:  P Jecker; R Schuon; C Morales; M Wohlfeil; S Rassouli; W J Mann
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Diagnostic interpretation of extended pH monitoring: is there a single best method?

Authors:  Vasundhara Tolia; Anne Wuerth; Ronald Thomas
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  The interpretation of oesophageal pH monitoring data.

Authors:  Y Vandenplas; H Loeb
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 3.183

5.  Dual pH probe monitoring versus single pH probe monitoring in infants on milk feeds: the impact on diagnosis.

Authors:  N Washington; P J Spensley; C A Smith; M Parker; D Bush; S J Jackson; L Kapila; T Stephenson; C Washington
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.791

6.  Does laryngopharyngeal reflux cause intraoral burning sensations? A preliminary study.

Authors:  Sven Becker; Christine Schmidt; Alexander Berghaus; Uta Tschiesner; Bernhard Olzowy; Oliver Reichel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-02-27       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  The management of periprosthetic leakage in the presence of supra-oesophageal reflux after prosthetic voice rehabilitation.

Authors:  Kai J Lorenz; L Grieser; T Ehrhart; H Maier
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-12-09       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Oesophageal pH monitoring and reflux oesophagitis in irritable infants.

Authors:  Yvan Vandenplas; Hegar Badriul; Marc Verghote; Bruno Hauser; Leonard Kaufman
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.183

9.  [Coincidence of fistula enlargement and supra-oesophageal reflux in patients after laryngectomy and prosthetic voice restoration].

Authors:  K J Lorenz; T Ehrhart; L Grieser; H Maier
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.284

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.