Literature DB >> 28370768

Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: Update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group.

S Roman1, C P Gyawali2, E Savarino3, R Yadlapati4, F Zerbib5, J Wu6, M Vela7, R Tutuian8, R Tatum9, D Sifrim10, J Keller11, M Fox12, J E Pandolfino4, A J Bredenoord13.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An international group of experts evaluated and revised recommendations for ambulatory reflux monitoring for the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).
METHODS: Literature search was focused on indications and technical recommendations for GERD testing and phenotypes definitions. Statements were proposed and discussed during several structured meetings. KEY
RESULTS: Reflux testing should be performed after cessation of acid suppressive medication in patients with a low likelihood of GERD. In this setting, testing can be either catheter-based or wireless pH-monitoring or pH-impedance monitoring. In patients with a high probability of GERD (esophagitis grade C and D, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, peptic stricture, previous positive pH monitoring) and persistent symptoms, pH-impedance monitoring should be performed on treatment. Recommendations are provided for data acquisition and analysis. Esophageal acid exposure is considered as pathological if acid exposure time (AET) is greater than 6% on pH testing. Number of reflux episodes and baseline impedance are exploratory metrics that may complement AET. Positive symptom reflux association is defined as symptom index (SI) >50% or symptom association probability (SAP) >95%. A positive symptom-reflux association in the absence of pathological AET defines hypersensitivity to reflux. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The consensus group determined that grade C or D esophagitis, peptic stricture, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, and esophageal acid exposure greater >6% are sufficient to define pathological GERD. Further testing should be considered when none of these criteria are fulfilled.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastro-esophageal reflux disease; esophageal acid exposure; esophagitis; reflux monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28370768     DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil        ISSN: 1350-1925            Impact factor:   3.598


  57 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.  Sleeve Gastrectomy, GERD, and Barrett's Esophagus: It Is Time for Objective Testing.

Authors:  Salvatore Tolone; Edoardo Savarino; Nicola De Bortoli; Ludovico Docimo
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 3.  Utility of Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry in Clinical Practice: First, Do HRM.

Authors:  Ishita Dhawan; Brendon O'Connell; Amit Patel; Ron Schey; Henry P Parkman; Frank Friedenberg
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Trajectory assessment is useful when day-to-day esophageal acid exposure varies in prolonged wireless pH monitoring.

Authors:  R Yadlapati; J D Ciolino; J Craft; S Roman; J E Pandolfino
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.429

5.  Prolonged Wireless pH Monitoring in Patients With Persistent Reflux Symptoms Despite Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy.

Authors:  Stephen Hasak; Rena Yadlapati; Osama Altayar; Rami Sweis; Emily Tucker; Kevin Knowles; Mark Fox; John Pandolfino; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Surgical and endoscopic management options for patients with GERD based on proton pump inhibitor symptom response: recommendations from an expert U.S. panel.

Authors:  Andrew J Gawron; Reginald Bell; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; F P Buckley; Kenneth Chang; Christy M Dunst; Steven A Edmundowicz; Blair Jobe; John C Lipham; Dan Lister; Marcia Irene Canto; Michael S Smith; Anthony A Starpoli; George Triadafilopoulos; Thomas J Watson; Erik Wilson; John E Pandolfino; Alexander Kaizer; Zoe Van De Voorde; Rena Yadlapati
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Genetic risk factors for perception of symptoms in GERD: an observational cohort study.

Authors:  A Patel; S Hasak; B D Nix; G S Sayuk; R D Newberry; C P Gyawali
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 8.171

8.  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

9.  Lower oesophageal sphincter identification for gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: The step-up method revisited with use of basal impedance.

Authors:  Aurelio Mauro; Marianna Franchina; Dario Consonni; Roberto Penagini
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 10.  Proton Pump Inhibitors in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Friend or Foe.

Authors:  C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2017-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.