Literature DB >> 9149194

Reproducibility of proximal probe pH parameters in 24-hour ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

M F Vaezi1, P L Schroeder, J E Richter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reproducibility and reliability of the proximal pH probe in detecting acid reflux into the proximal esophagus.
METHODS: Using dual probe ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring, we studied 32 subjects (11 healthy control subjects, 10 patients with distal esophageal acid reflux, and 11 patients with both distal and proximal esophageal acid exposure) on two separate days within a 20-day period. The distal pH probe was placed 5 cm above the manometrically determined lower esophageal sphincter, and the proximal probe was positioned immediately distal to the upper esophageal sphincter. Patients were categorized on the basis of the esophageal pH data obtained during the first study. Reflux parameters assessed were the percentages of time in which pH was <4 in the total, upright, and supine positions. To be considered reproducible, all three of the above parameters had to remain in the same category as the first day's results.
RESULTS: Intrasubject reproducibility of the proximal probe was 91-100% in healthy subjects, 70-90% in patients with distal esophageal acid reflux, and 45-73% in patients with proximal esophageal acid reflux. The proximal probe reproducibility for the overall diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease was 91% in healthy subjects, 70% in patients with distal esophageal acid reflux, and only 55% in those with proximal esophageal acid reflux. Statistical analysis demonstrated only a fair index of concordance (kappa = 0.40) for the proximal probe.
CONCLUSIONS: The proximal pH probe has excellent specificity (91%) but poorer sensitivity and reproducibility (55%) for identifying abnormal amounts of proximal esophageal acid reflux. Therefore, a negative test result does not exclude proximal reflux with microaspiration as a cause of atypical reflux symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9149194

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  42 in total

1.  24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring may be an inadequate test for detecting gastroesophageal reflux in patients with mixed typical and atypical symptoms.

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

Review 2.  The laryngeal and esophageal manifestations of Sjögren's syndrome.

Authors:  Peter C Belafsky; Gregory N Postma
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.592

3.  Loss of alkalization in proximal esophagus: a new diagnostic paradigm for patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.

Authors:  Shahin Ayazi; Jeffrey A Hagen; Joerg Zehetner; Matt Lilley; Priyanka Wali; Florian Augustin; Arzu Oezcelik; Helen J Sohn; John C Lipham; Steven R Demeester; Tom R DeMeester
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-09-11       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 4.  A review of the potential applications and controversies of non-invasive testing for biomarkers of aspiration in the lung transplant population.

Authors:  C S Davis; J Gagermeier; D Dilling; C Alex; E Lowery; E J Kovacs; R B Love; P M Fisichella
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 2.863

5.  Relevance of volume and proximal extent of reflux in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  D Sifrim
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 6.  Atypical manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2005-10-27

Review 7.  Mucosal Impedance: a New Approach to Diagnosing Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Authors:  Caroline Barrett; Yash Choksi; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2018-06-09

Review 8.  Rhinosinusitis: Establishing definitions for clinical research and patient care.

Authors:  Eli O Meltzer; Daniel L Hamilos; James A Hadley; Donald C Lanza; Bradley F Marple; Richard A Nicklas; Claus Bachert; James Baraniuk; Fuad M Baroody; Michael S Benninger; Itzhak Brook; Badrul A Chowdhury; Howard M Druce; Stephen Durham; Berrylin Ferguson; Jack M Gwaltney; Michael Kaliner; David W Kennedy; Valerie Lund; Robert Naclerio; Ruby Pawankar; Jay F Piccirillo; Patricia Rohane; Ronald Simon; Raymond G Slavin; Alkis Togias; Ellen R Wald; S James Zinreich
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  Proximal sensor data from routine dual-sensor esophageal pH monitoring is often inaccurate.

Authors:  Matt McCollough; Abdul Jabbar; Robert Cacchione; Jeff W Allen; Steve Harrell; John M Wo
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 10.  Rhinosinusitis: establishing definitions for clinical research and patient care.

Authors:  Eli O Meltzer; Daniel L Hamilos; James A Hadley; Donald C Lanza; Bradley F Marple; Richard A Nicklas; Claus Bachert; James Baraniuk; Fuad M Baroody; Michael S Benninger; Itzhak Brook; Badrul A Chowdhury; Howard M Druce; Stephen Durham; Berrylin Ferguson; Jack M Gwaltney; Michael Kaliner; David W Kennedy; Valerie Lund; Robert Naclerio; Ruby Pawankar; Jay F Piccirillo; Patricia Rohane; Ronald Simon; Raymond G Slavin; Alkis Togias; Ellen R Wald; S James Zinreich
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 10.793

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.