BACKGROUND: The modalities for evaluating acid reflux in medical care for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include conventional pH (C-pH), wireless pH (Bravo®) and multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH), which have been reported to vary with respect to the duration of acid reflux. In this study, we examined the difference between the acid reflux in C-pH and MII-pH among patients with GERD. METHODS: Prior to initial laparoscopic fundoplication carried out on 297 cases from December 1994 to April 2016, an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and C-pH or MII-pH were conducted. A propensity score-matched analysis was carried out about five factors including age, sex, BMI, the extent of reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles classification), and the presence of hiatal hernia (HH), ultimately leading to the creation of a C-pH group (81 cases) and MII-pH group (81 cases) as the subjects. RESULTS: Concerning pH < 4 holding time (18.9 vs. 7.3%, p < 0.001), DeMeester score (58.5 vs. 24.4, p < 0.001), and the number of times reflux continued for longer than 5 min (8.8 vs. 4.1 times/day, p = 0.002), the C-pH group had significantly higher values for each, while the positive rate of acid reflux (Positive pH) was significantly higher in the C-pH group (p < 0.001), at 80% in the C-pH group and 42% in the MII-pH group. In terms of the correlation between the extent of reflux esophagitis and pH < 4 holding time, a moderate level of positive correlation was seen in both the C-pH group and MII-pH group (r of each = 0.427, r = 0.408); moreover, regardless of the presence of HH, the holding time was significantly higher in the C-pH group than the MII-pH group (p of each <0.001, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: While the values of each parameter regarding acid reflux are calculated as lower in MII-pH than in C-pH, there is no difference in the evaluation of the pathology between the two modalities.
BACKGROUND: The modalities for evaluating acid reflux in medical care for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include conventional pH (C-pH), wireless pH (Bravo®) and multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH), which have been reported to vary with respect to the duration of acid reflux. In this study, we examined the difference between the acid reflux in C-pH and MII-pH among patients with GERD. METHODS: Prior to initial laparoscopic fundoplication carried out on 297 cases from December 1994 to April 2016, an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and C-pH or MII-pH were conducted. A propensity score-matched analysis was carried out about five factors including age, sex, BMI, the extent of reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles classification), and the presence of hiatal hernia (HH), ultimately leading to the creation of a C-pH group (81 cases) and MII-pH group (81 cases) as the subjects. RESULTS: Concerning pH < 4 holding time (18.9 vs. 7.3%, p < 0.001), DeMeester score (58.5 vs. 24.4, p < 0.001), and the number of times reflux continued for longer than 5 min (8.8 vs. 4.1 times/day, p = 0.002), the C-pH group had significantly higher values for each, while the positive rate of acid reflux (Positive pH) was significantly higher in the C-pH group (p < 0.001), at 80% in the C-pH group and 42% in the MII-pH group. In terms of the correlation between the extent of reflux esophagitis and pH < 4 holding time, a moderate level of positive correlation was seen in both the C-pH group and MII-pH group (r of each = 0.427, r = 0.408); moreover, regardless of the presence of HH, the holding time was significantly higher in the C-pH group than the MII-pH group (p of each <0.001, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: While the values of each parameter regarding acid reflux are calculated as lower in MII-pH than in C-pH, there is no difference in the evaluation of the pathology between the two modalities.
Authors: Michelle S Han; Michal J Lada; Dylan R Nieman; Andreas Tschoner; Christian G Peyre; Carolyn E Jones; Thomas J Watson; Jeffrey H Peters Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Mitchal A Schreiner; Thomas J Lee; Qing Zhang; Christopher Boniquit; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Reginald V N Lord; Steven R DeMeester; Jeffrey H Peters; Jeffrey A Hagen; Dino Elyssnia; Corinne T Sheth; Tom R DeMeester Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ying L Xiao; Jin K Lin; Ting K Cheung; Nina Y H Wong; Li Yang; Ivan F N Hung; Benjamin C Y Wong; Min H Chen Journal: Digestion Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 3.216
Authors: H Miwa; T Yokoyama; K Hori; T Sakagami; T Oshima; T Tomita; Y Fujiwara; H Saita; T Itou; H Ogawa; Y Nakamura; K Kishi; Y Murayama; E Hayashi; K Kobayashi; N Tano; K Matsushita; H Kawamoto; Y Sawada; A Ohkawa; E Arai; K Nagao; N Hamamoto; Y Sugiyasu; K Sugimoto; H Hara; M Tanimura; Y Honda; K Isozaki; S Noda; S Kubota; S Himeno Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2008 Impact factor: 3.429