Bravo (wireless) ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring: How do day 1 and day 2 results compare?

AIM： To investigate if differences exist for patients＇ gastroesophageal reflux as measured by the Bravo ambulatory esophageal pH system between d 1 and d 2.METHODS： A retrospective study of 27 consecutive adult patients who underwent Bravo esophageal pH monitoring was performed. Patients underwent EGD under Ⅳ conscious sedation prior to Bravo placement. Acid reflux variables and symptom scores for d 1 were compared to d 2.RESULTS： The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were 90.4 μg and 7.2 mg, respectively. D 1 results were significantly more elevated than d 2 with respect to total time pH 〈 4, upright position reflux, and mean number of long refluxes. No statistical difference was noted between the two days for supine position reflux, number of refluxes, duration of longest reflux, episodes of heartburn, and symptom score.CONCLUSION： Patients undergoing Bravo esophageal pH monitoring in association with EGD and moderate conscious sedation experience significantly more acid reflux on d i compared to d 2. The Ⅳ sedation may be responsible for the increased reflux on d 1. Performed this way, 48-h Bravo results may not be entirely representative of the patients＇ true GE reflux profile.

Esophageal manometry and 24-hour pH monitoring in esophagus surgery:28-year Chinese experience in a single center

Objective To retrospectively review the experience of esophageal manometry and 24-hour pH monitoring in e-sophagus surgery. Methods From 1982 to 2010,patients with unspecific chest pain and undergone esophageal surgery were received esophageal manometry and 24-hour pH monitoring. Results Among the patients with

Diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease in elderly subjects using 24-houres ophageal pH monitoring

Objective To evaluate the relationship between the parameters of 24 hour esophageal pH monitoring and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) among elderly subjects. Methods Twenty four hour esophageal pH monitoring was carried out in 20 elderly subjects without apparent GERD symptoms (controls) and 69 suspected GERD subjects.Results Normal values of the parameters from 20 elderly controls were obtained. Percent of total time, percent of supine time and percent of upright time in which the pH was <4 (indicating reflux) were less than 3.3%, 1.4%, 5.5%, respectively. The number of reflux episodes and episodes lasting longer than 5 minutes were less than 65 and 2 times respectively. The values obtained in 66 GERD suspected subjects were significantly different from those in norrmal controls. The differences of reflux parameters between the esophagitis group and non esophagitis group, such as percent of total time with pH<4, percent of supine time with pH<4 and number of reflux lasting longer than 5 minutes were also significant. Conclusions About 51.6% patients (34/66) with reflux symptoms but without endoscopic evidence of esophagitis were definitely diagnosed as GERD by esophageal pH monitoring. Duration of esophageal acid exposure correlated with the severity of GERD.

Prolapse gastropathy syndrome may be a predictor of pathologic acid reflux

AIM： To assess the occurrence of gastric acid reflux into the esophagus in endoscopically confirmed prolapse gastropathy syndrome （PGS）. METHODS： Using ambulatory esophageal pH measurement （BRAVOTM wireless esophageal pH monitoring system）, twenty-six patients with PGS were compared with twenty-one patients with erosive esophagitis （EE） as controls. We assessed several reflux parameters, including the percentage of total time at pH 〈 4, and the DeMeester score. RESULTS： There were no statistical differences between the PGS group and the EE group as to mean age, sex ratio and pH recording time. The EE group showed more severe reflux than the PGS group, as evaluated in terms of the longest duration of reflux, the number of reflux episodes, the number of reflux episodes lasting 〉 5 min, the total time with pH 〈 4 during acid reflux episodes, and the DeMeester score, but none of these parameters showed statistically significant difference. Although 53.8% （14/26） of the PGS group and 76.2% （16/22） of the EE group demonstrated pathologic acid reflux （DeMeester score 〉 14.72）, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of pathologic acid reflux （P = 0.11）. CONCLUSION： There was no statistically significant difference in pathologic acid reflux between the PGS and EE group. These data suggest that endoscopically diagnosed PGS might be a predictor of pathologic acid reflux.