Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2017 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 1

Indications of 24-h esophageal pH monitoring, capsule pH monitoring, combined pH monitoring with multichannel impedance, esophageal manometry, radiology and scintigraphy in gastroesophageal reflux disease?

Pages
16–21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of a few studies do not provide sufficient contribution toward the implementation in clinical practice

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring is an essential method in patients exhibiting signs of non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) to make an objective diagnosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:With the help of the wireless capsule pH monitoring, measurements can be made under more physiological conditions as well as longer recordings can be performed because the investigation can be better tolerated by patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of a few studies do not provide sufficient contribution toward the implementation in clinical practice
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring is an essential method in patients exhibiting signs of non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) to make an objective diagnosis. Intra-esophageal pH monitoring is important in patients who are non-responsive to medications and in those with extraesophageal symptoms, particularly in NERD, before surgical interventions. With the help of the wireless capsule pH monitoring, measurements can be made under more physiological conditions as well as longer recordings can be performed because the investigation can be better tolerated by patients. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring can be detected within normal limits in 17%-31.4% of the patients with endoscopic esophagitis; therefore, normal pH monitoring cannot exclude the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Multi-channel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH) technology have been developed and currently the most sensitive tool to evaluate patients with both typical and atypical reflux symptoms. The sensitivity of a pH catheter test is 58% for the detection of acid reflux compared with MII-pH monitoring; further, its sensitivity is 28% for the detection of weak acid reflux compared with MII-pH monitoring. By adding impedance to pH catheter in patients with reflux symptoms, particularly in those receiving PPIs, it has been demonstrated that higher rates of diagnoses and symptom analyses can be obtained than those using only pH catheter. Esophageal manometry is used in the evaluation of patients with functional dysphagia and unexplained noncardiac chest pain and prior to antireflux surgery. The use of esophageal manometry is suitable for the detection of esophageal motor patterns and extreme motor abnormalities (e.g., achalasia and extreme hypomotility). Esophageal manometry and ambulatory pH monitoring are often used in assessments prior to laparoscopic antireflux surgery and in patients with reflux symptoms refractory to medical treatment. Although the esophageal motility is predominantly normal in patients with non-acid reflux, ineffective esophageal motility is often monitored in patients with acid reflux. In the literature, there are contradictory and an insufficient number of studies regarding radiological methods for the diagnosis of GERD. There are inconsistent values for sensitivity and specificity among the barium studies. There are inadequate studies in the literature involving scintigraphic examinations in the diagnosis of GERD, and a majority of existing studies have been conducted in the pediatric group. The results of a few studies do not provide sufficient contribution toward the implementation in clinical practice

🔖

Cite This Article

VARDAR, R., KESKİN, M. (2017). Indications of 24-h esophageal pH monitoring, capsule pH monitoring, combined pH monitoring with multichannel impedance, esophageal manometry, radiology and scintigraphy in gastroesophageal reflux disease?. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 1, 16–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/410728

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Wiener GJ, Richter JE, Copper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO. The symptom index: a clinically important parameter of ambulatory 24- hour esophageal pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 1988; 83: 358-61
  2. Cabrera J, Davis M, Horn D, Pfefferkorn M, Croffie JM. Esophageal pH monitoring with the BRAVO capsule: experience in a single tertiary medical center. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2011; 53: 404-8
  3. Croffie JM, Fitzgerald JF, Molleston JP, et al. Accuracy and tolerability of the Bravo catheter-free pH capsule in patients between the ages of 4 and 18 years. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2007; 45: 559-63. [CrossRef] 4. Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, Oberg S. Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: feasibility, safety and normal values in healthy subjects. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005; 40: 768-74. [CrossRef] 5. Pandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, Guardino JM, Chapman J, Kahrilas PJ. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 740-9. [CrossRef] 6. Ward EM, Devault KR, Bouras EP, et al. Successful oesophageal pH monitoring with a catheter-free system. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 19: 449-54. [CrossRef] 7. Ayazi S, Lipham JC, Portale G, et al. Bravo catheter-free pH monitoring: normal values, concordance, optimal diagnostic thresholds, and accuracy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 60-7. [CrossRef] 8. Pandolfino JE. Bravo capsule pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 8-10. [CrossRef] 9. des Varannes SB, Mion F, Ducrotte P, et al. Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo). Gut 2005; 54: 1682-6. [CrossRef] 10. Kahrilas PJ, Quigley EM. Clinical esophageal pH recording: a technical review for practice guideline development. Gastroenterology 1996; 110: 1982-96. [CrossRef] 11. Pandolfino JE, Zhang Q, Schreiner MA, Ghosh S, Roth MP, Kahrilas PJ. Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different? Gut 2005; 54: 1687-92
  4. Bhat YM, McGrath KM, Bielefeldt K. Wireless esophageal pH monitoring: new technique means new questions. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 40: 116-21. [CrossRef] 13. Gillies RS, Stratford JM, Booth MI, Dehn TC. Oesophageal pH monitoring using the Bravo catheter-free radio capsule. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 19: 57-63. [CrossRef] 14. Remes-Troche JM, Ibarra-Palomino J, Carmona-Sanchez RI, Valdovinos MA. Performance, tolerability, and symptoms related to prolo