[Severe chest pain after retention of wireless pH capsule]. / Dolor torácico severo tras retención de cápsula inalámbrica de pH.

The wireless capsule to measure gastroesophageal reflux, also known as pH monitoring capsule, is a technique used in ambulatory reflux monitoring. This capsule is introduced through a guide into the esophagus and is placed using a suction system and anchored to the esophageal mucosa. From there, it communicates with an external device using radio signals to record the activity of gastric acid in the esophagus over a specified period of time. Unlike the conventional technique, which involves inserting a tube through the nose into the esophagus, the wireless capsule may be a more comfortable and tolerable alternative for patients, potentially improving adherence to the procedure. In some cases, patients may present chest pain after placement of the pH monitoring capsule, however there is little evidence about the etiology and management. We present the case of a woman with a clinical picture of gastroesophageal reflux, with pH monitoring capsule placement, which resulted in severe chest pain that required endoscopic capsule removal.

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in named manometric patterns of dysmotility according to the Chicago Classification 4.0.

Esophageal motility disorders (EMD) may be considered primary disorders only in the absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). If GERD is present, treatment should be directed toward correction of the abnormal reflux. The actual prevalence of GERD in manometric dysmotility patterns according to the new Chicago Classification 4.0 (CC4) is still elusive. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of GERD in patients with esophageal motility disorders according to the CC4. We reviewed 400 consecutive patients that underwent esophageal manometry and pH monitoring. Esophageal motility was classified according to the CC4 and GERD + was defined by a DeMeester score > 14.7. Normal motility or unclassified dysmotility was present in 290 (73%) patients, with GERD+ in 184 of them (63%). There were a total of 110 patients (27%) with named esophageal motility disorders, with GERD+ in 67 (61%). The incidence of ineffective esophageal motility was 59% (n = 65) with 69% GERD +, diffuse esophageal spasm was 40% (n = 44) with 48% GERD +, and hypercontractile esophagus was 0.01% (n = 1) with 100% GERD +. There was no correlation between the presence of GERD and the number of non-peristaltic swallows. Our results show that: (i) manometry only is not enough to select patients' treatment as >60% of patients with named esophageal motility disorders have GERD; (ii) there was no correlation between the presence of GERD and the number of non-peristaltic swallows.

Safety and Efficacy of Wireless pH Monitoring in Patients Suspected of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety, technical efficacy, and effectiveness of 48-hour wireless pH monitoring (WM) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), compared with no pH monitoring in patients who failed to tolerate a catheter. In the absence of eligible studies, the secondary aim was to determine these performance characteristics for WM relative to catheter-based pH monitoring (CBM) in patients suspected of GERD, who are able to tolerate a catheter. METHODS: A protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42013005852) before conducting the systematic review, which included the study selection criteria, and critical appraisal methods. Several key databases were searched to identify eligible comparative studies. RESULTS: Chest pain occurred more often with WM compared with CBM; however, other adverse events were reported less frequently with WM. Technical failures, mostly due to attachment failures and early capsule detachments, were 3 times higher with WM, compared with CBM, [pooled relative risk (from meta-analysis)=3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-6.81; I=0%; P=0.012; k=8). The sensitivity and specificity of WM varied widely, depending on type of analysis, monitoring time, capsule placement, reference standard, and diagnostic threshold. DISCUSSION: WM is usually better tolerated than CBM but has more technical problems. Test accuracy was highly variable between studies; therefore, conclusions could not be drawn regarding the performance of the 2 tests. To make meaningful comparisons between WM and CBM a consensus is needed on the diagnostic threshold for GERD, monitoring time, appropriate capsule positioning, and the reference standard.

Interference with daily activities and major adverse events during esophageal pH monitoring with bravo wireless capsule versus conventional intranasal catheter: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

For three decades, ambulatory 24-hour intranasal pH monitoring has been the established gold standard for detecting acid reflux in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, device-associated adverse events and unpleasant experiences, reported by patients during pH monitoring have led to the invention of more convenient pH monitors such as Bravo wireless capsule. To compare the interference with daily activities and major adverse events during pH monitoring with Bravo wireless capsule (Bravo) versus conventional intranasal catheter (catheter), PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched up to March 20, 2015. Only randomized controlled trials in adult patients that compared the interference with routine daily activities and adverse events between Bravo and catheter pH monitors were included. After screening 574 articles, three unique studies with 167 patients met our inclusion criteria. The average age of patients enrolled in these studies was 51 years. Interference with normal daily activities was more in the catheter than Bravo group: 75 ± 5 versus 92 ± 2, P < 0.001 (Andrews et al, findings were reported as100 mm, mean visual analogue scale (VAS) ± standard error of the mean, 100 = completely normal); Wong et al. (mean ± standard error of the mean): 1.3 ± 0.2 versus 0.32 ± 0.1, P = 0.001 and Wenner et al. using 10 cm median VAS (Interquartile range),10 been the worst is 5.7 (2.3-8.0) compared to 0.7 (0.2-3.4), P < 0.0001, respectively. Overall adverse events were more in the catheter group than Bravo (39 ± 4 vs. 26 ± 4, P = 0.012 for Andrews et al. (100 been the worst) and 5.1 (2.0-6.6) vs. 2.1 (0.5-4.6), P < 0.001 for Wenner et al.). No overall adverse events recorded for Wong et al. Most patients in catheter group complained of nasal and throat symptoms. Significantly, runny nose in 24 out of 25 patients (96%) catheter versus 13 out of 25 (52%) Bravo, P = 0.001 and nose pain 15 out 25 (60%) versus 8 out of 25 patients (32%), P = 0.047, respectively for Wong et al. Andrews and Wenner et al also showed profound nasal discomforts in catheter group compared to Bravo (39 ± 3 vs. 10 ± 3, P < 0.001 and 6.5 (1.5-8.0) versus 0.2 (0.0-1.9), P < 0.0001, respectively. Throat symptoms reported in Wong et al. were mainly throat discomfort in catheter group 23 out of 25 patients (92%) versus Bravo 12 out of 25 (48%), P = 0.001 and throat pain catheter (12 out of 25 patients (48%) vs. Bravo 4 out of 25 (16%)), P = 0.032. This trend was also observed in Andrews et al. with profound throat discomfort in the catheter group 43 ± 4 compared to Bravo 19 ± 4, P < 0.001. Majority of the patients randomized to Bravo group reportedly perceived chest pain higher than those in catheter group; 9 out of 25 patients (36%) versus 2 out of 25 (8%), P = 0.037 in Wong et al. 29 ± 4 versus 14 ± 3, P = 0.001 for Andrews et al., 2.4 (0.3-5.9) versus 1.1 (0.3-2.9), P = 0.084 in Wenner et al. respectively (though not statistically significant). Bravo wireless capsule pH monitor interfered less with daily activities and adverse events were minimal compared to conventional intranasal catheter.

Clinical value of wireless pH-monitoring of gastro-esophageal reflux in children before and after proton pump inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Wireless pH-monitoring is an accurate method for diagnosing adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of the Bravo capsule on children investigated for GERD in terms of safety, tolerability and feasibility before and after administration of proton pump inhibitors. METHODS: A Bravo capsule was inserted during upper endoscopy under general anaesthesia or deep sedation with propofol. 48-hour pH-metry was performed in 106 children (50 males, 56 females) at the median age of 11 years (range 17 months-18 years). On the second day of investigation, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was given at a mean dose of 1.6 mg/kg (SD ±0.6 mg). The definition of GERD was set to a reflux index (RI) of ≥5% and DeMeester score (DMS) ≥14.7. RESULTS: Application of the capsule was successful in 103 of the 106 children (97.2%) and interpretable in 99 of these 103 (96.1%). 49 of the children with interpretable results (49.5%) had GERD according to RI, while 51 (56.7%) had GERD according to DMS. After PPI was given on day 2, RI decreased from a median of 4.9% (range 0.3-63.4%) to 2.2% (0-58.0%), while DMS decreased from a median of 17.6 (range 2.2-207.6) to 8.2 (0.3-178.6), respectively (p < 0.0001). No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Wireless pH-metry is a safe and tolerable method when investigating children for GERD. PPI given on the second day of assessment provides additional information on response to treatment suggesting that pH-metry preferably should be extended to 48 hours.

[The diagnostic impact and limitations of 24 hour pH monitoring with multichannel intraluminal impedance]. / Znaczenie diagnostyczne i ograniczenia 24 godzinnej pH-metrii przelyku z impedancja.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a result of reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus. Gastroscopy is often the first examination performed in GERD diagnosis. Some patients have macroscopic lesions, namely erosions, in the esophagus above the cardia of stomach. It enables to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, many patients have no macroscopic lesions of the esophageal mucosa in endoscopy. That is why 24-hour pH monitoring with multichannel intraluminal impedance is the gold standard in diagnosis establishing of GERD and make feasible to distinguish acid, weakly acid and nonacid reflux and its correlation with reported symptoms. Impedance-pH is used to establish diagnosis of GERD, in patient qualification to anti-reflux surgery, to find the cause of not efficient reflux disease treatment as well as the cause of extra-esophageal symptoms of reflux disease. During impedance-pH test catheter connected with the recorder is placed in patient's esophagus. Recorded data is analyzed with the computer program. The examination is safe, the only complication that can occur is nasal bleeding, which can be a result of mucosa damage caused while catheter implementation. Nowadays disposable catheters are used, that excludes the risk of catheter related infection. On the basis of pH-impedance results it is possible to divide patients into 3 groups: patients with functional heartburn, patients with esophageal hypersensitivity and abnormal esophageal acid exposure. This classification is very helpful in the choice of treatment - antireflux surgery, proton pump inhibitor or prokinetic therapy.

The influence of supragastric belching severity on esophageal acid exposure and motility.

BACKGROUND: Supragastric belching (SGB) is a phenomenon where air is rapidly sucked from the pharynx into the esophagus and immediately expelled through abdominal straining. It is considered a behavior disorder and is increasingly recognized not only in patients with excessive belching, but also in those with reflux-like symptoms. Increased prevalence of esophageal hypomotility and increased acid exposure were previously reported in small cohorts of SGB patients. We aimed to clarify the impact of SGB on motility, reflux, and acid exposure in a large cohort of SGB patients. METHODS: In a single-center database study, we searched for patients with pathological SGB. MII-pH and Manometry tracings were manually re-evaluated in all patients. Demographic, clinical, motility, reflux, and SGB-related data were gathered. KEY RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-eight patients were included. Heartburn, belching, and regurgitation were the most common symptoms. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) was found in 27% of patients. SGB related to 47% of all reflux and to 53.6% of acid reflux events, and accounted for 27.3% of acid exposure time (AET). In those with severe SGB, 62% of acid reflux events and 46% of AET were SGB-related. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Supragastric belching is common, associated with higher incidence of IEM and is responsible for almost a third of esophageal acid burden. The impact of SGB is proportional to its severity. Diagnosis of SGB should be sought in patients with excessive belching and in patients with refractory reflux symptoms. Recognizing SGB and treating patients with behavioral therapy may alleviate acid exposure and improve quality of life.

Ineffective esophageal motility is associated with acute rejection after lung transplantation independent of gastroesophageal reflux.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux is associated with poorer outcomes after lung transplant, likely through recurrent aspiration and allograft injury. Although prior studies have demonstrated a relationship between impedance-pH results and transplant outcomes, the role of esophageal manometry in the assessment of lung transplant patients remains debated, and the impact of esophageal dysmotility on transplant outcomes is unclear. Of particular interest is ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and its associated impact on esophageal clearance. AIM: To assess the relationship between pre-transplant IEM diagnosis and acute rejection after lung transplantation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of lung transplant recipients at a tertiary care center between 2007 and 2018. Patients with pre-transplant anti-reflux surgery were excluded. Manometric and reflux diagnoses were recorded from pre-transplant esophageal function testing. Time-to-event analysis using Cox proportional hazards model was applied to evaluate outcome of first episode of acute cellular rejection, defined histologically per International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines. Subjects not meeting this endpoint were censored at time of post-transplant anti-reflux surgery, last clinic visit, or death. Fisher's exact test for binary variables and student's t-test for continuous variables were performed to assess for differences between groups. RESULTS: Of 184 subjects (54% men, mean age: 58, follow-up: 443 person-years) met criteria for inclusion. Interstitial pulmonary fibrosis represented the predominant pulmonary diagnosis (41%). During the follow-up period, 60 subjects (33.5%) developed acute rejection. The all-cause mortality was 16.3%. Time-to-event univariate analyses demonstrated significant association between IEM and acute rejection [hazard ratio (HR): 1.984, 95%CI: 1.03-3.30, P = 0.04], confirmed on Kaplan-Meier curve. On multivariable analysis, IEM remained independently associated with acute rejection, even after controlling for potential confounders such as the presence of acid and nonacid reflux (HR: 2.20, 95%CI: 1.18-4.11, P = 0.01). Nonacid reflux was also independently associated with acute rejection on both univariate (HR: 2.16, 95%CI: 1.26-3.72, P = 0.005) and multivariable analyses (HR: 2.10, 95%CI: 1.21-3.64, P = 0.009), adjusting for the presence of IEM. CONCLUSION: Pre-transplant IEM was associated with acute rejection after transplantation, even after controlling for acid and nonacid reflux. Esophageal motility testing may be considered in lung transplant to predict outcomes.

Characteristics of gastroesophageal reflux disease in children with interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Childhood interstitial lung disease (chILD) is a rare group of respiratory tract disorders. One of the factors suggested to be associated with its etiopathogenesis is microaspiration related to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of the present study was to determine the frequency and characteristics of GERD in children with chILD, with a particular focus on proximal GER episodes. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional study. Consecutive patients with chILD underwent 24-h multichannel intraluminal pH-impedance monitoring. Different types of gastroesophageal reflux episodes (GER) were recorded and compared with regard to the GERD diagnosis. RESULTS: Sixty-two children (median age of 1.22 years) were included. GERD was diagnosed in 20 (32.3%) of them. The GERD (+) and GERD (-) subgroups differed mainly in their esophageal exposure to acid content (2.9 vs. 1.0%, p = 0.02) and bolus exposure (3.0 vs. 1.4%, p < 0.0001), as well as total number of GER (72.5 vs. 42.0 p = 0.0004), acid GER (35.5 vs. 15.0 p = 0.004), and acid proximal GER (21.0 vs. 12.0 p = 0.02). There were no differences in the number of proximal GER comparing GERD (+) and GERD (-) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of GERD seems to be relatively high in the population of children with chILD used in this study. However, it has not demonstrated an association between proximal GER and GERD diagnosis in chILD, which casts uncertainty over the microaspiration theory proposed to link the two diseases. The latter conclusion, however, needs to be confirmed using more accurate aspiration assessment methods.

24 Versus 48-hour bravo pH monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Historical ambulatory pH monitoring systems for the evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease have been catheter based and uncomfortable for patients, commonly limiting both their diet and activities. Catheter-based studies have also been reported to underestimate the amount of reflux a patient may have in a normal, routine day. Compared with conventional catheter-based pH monitoring systems, wireless (Bravo) pH monitoring is better tolerated by patients and allows for an increased duration of pH recording. Currently, there is lack of data regarding the optimal duration of wireless studies and concern that day 1 results are not typical of a patient's routine lifestyle, given the effects of sedation. Few studies have evaluated the merits of 24 versus 48-hour wireless pH monitoring. AIMS: The aims of this study were (1) to identify differences in reflux parameters between 24 versus 48-hour testing as measured by wireless pH monitoring and (2) to assess the effect of 48-hour studies on the number of reflux episodes and symptom correlation as compared with 24-hour studies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 124 consecutive patients who underwent 48-hour wireless esophageal pH monitoring studies was prepared. All patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy using intravenous conscious sedation before wireless capsule placement. Acid reflux variables (including total reflux time, number of reflux episodes, and total percent time of pH<4) and symptom-association probability (SAP) scores were compared for day 1 versus day 2 versus total. RESULTS: Forty-eight-hour SAP scores were significantly higher when compared with the first 24 hours for all reported primary symptoms. SAP scores were calculated at 24 and 48 hours, respectively for heartburn (56 vs. 65, P<0.0001), regurgitation (65 vs. 80, P<0.0001), chest pain (59 vs. 78, P=0.0009), and cough (55 vs. 64, P=0.0027). In addition, the percentage of SAP scores >95 was significantly higher for both heartburn and regurgitation (34% vs. 48%, P=0.003 and 38% vs. 62%, P=0.005). As expected, 48-hour testing also captured a significantly higher number of reflux episodes as compared with day 1 results alone (97 vs. 47, P<0.0001). There were no statistical differences noted between the 2 days for total percent time of pH <4. CONCLUSIONS: Forty-eight-hour wireless (Bravo) pH monitoring strengthens symptom correlation as compared with 24-hour results alone and yields a greater percentage of SAP scores >95 for typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Prolonged recording of patient symptoms and/or sedation effects may account for the better symptom correlation. Although there were no statistical differences seen in this study between 24 and 48-hour studies for total percent time pH <4, 48-hour studies captured significantly more reflux episodes as compared with 24 hours of monitoring alone. These results suggest that patients undergoing wireless pH monitoring should have 48-hour studies performed as a standard of practice.

[Home Treatment "Bremen ambulant vor Ort (BravO)"]. / Die aufsuchende Behandlung "Bremen ambulant vor Ort (BravO)".

OBJECTIVE: The existing legal framework to foster home treatment for severe mental illness imposes challenges for implementation. 'Bremen ambulant vor Ort (BravO)' provides home treatment on basis of the "Bundespflegesatzverordnung". METHODS: The concept and framework of BravO will be outlined, routine data on the BravO treatment from October 1st, 2019 to September 30th, 2021 were analysed. RESULTS: Financial and staff resources of 20 in-patient treatment places were equivalently transferred into BravO. 298 patients generating 392 cases received treatment. Median treatment span was 36 days, with 21 days (median) of service delivery. 74.7 % were diagnosed either in ICD-10 groups F2 or F3. CONCLUSION: BravO was successfully implemented into routine care. BravO allows flexible home treatment for people with severe mental illness apart from existing treatment framework.

Prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in Thai asthmatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of airways and associated with airway hyperresponsiveness and reversible bronchoconstriction. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a disorder caused by the reflux of gastric content up into the esophagus. It has been proposed that GERD is one of the exacerbating factors in the patients with poor controlled asthma. OBJECTIVE: Determine the prevalence of GERD in asthmatic patients and the association between GERD and the level of asthma control in Thailand. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in 56 asthmatic patients at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. They were performed twenty-four-hour esophageal pH monitoring. RESULTS: The prevalence of GERD in Thai asthmatic patients was 37.50%. Fifteen of 21 patients (71.43%) with GERD experienced reflux symptoms. The sensitivity specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of reflux symptoms for diagnosis GERD were 71.43%, 77.14%, 65.22% and 81.82%, respectively. The prevalence of GERD was higher in uncontrolled asthmatic patients than partly controlled and controlled subjects. Among uncontrolled asthma, the prevalence of GERD was higher than those without GERD (57.17% and 25.72%, respectively, p = 0.028). Asthma Control Test (ACT) score of less than twenty (poor controlled asthma) was higher in the asthmatic patients with GERD than those without GERD (80.95% and 48.57%, respectively, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: The authors concluded that the prevalence of GERD in Thai asthmatic patients was 37.50%. There was significant association between GERD and the level of asthma control.

Prevalence of Gastro-esophageal Reflux Disease in Suspected Laryngo- pharingeal Reflux Unresponsive to Proton-pump Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Laryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR) may be part of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). However, sometimes suspected LPR seems refractory to Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI), questioning therefore the GERD diagnosis. Our aim was to evaluate the real-life prevalence of GERD in patients with a recent laryngoscopic diagnosis of LPR, and unresponsive to PPI. We also assessed whether other causes than GERD could explain the laryngoscopic findings in those patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with the diagnosis of LPR, and unresponsive to PPI. Those patients must have been investigated by: upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies; multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring (MII-pH); X-ray of the chest and/or of the paranasal sinuses; hormonal thyroid assessment; prick tests to assess food and/or inhalants and pollen allergy. RESULTS: We enrolled 28 patients (18, 64.3%, males and 10, 35.7%, females; median, IQR age 39.4, 21-75 yrs). Endoscopic hiatal hernia was found in 9/28 (32.1%) patients; the MII-pH analysis showed abnormality in 2/28 (7.14%) patients (both having also GERD symptoms); Chest X-ray found chest diseases in 2/28 (7.14%) patients and X-rays of the paranasal sinuses found sinusitis in 1/28 (3.6%); 2/28 (7.14%) patients had hyperthyroidism; food and/or inhalants and pollen allergy was found in 9 (32.1%) patients. In 12/28 (42.9%) patients, any of the investigated diseases was found. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the real prevalence of GERD in patients with a recent laryngoscopic diagnosis of LPR, and unresponsive to PPI, is low. Moreover, more than 40% of them did not show any of the investigated diseases in real life.

Lidocaine before esophageal manometry and ambulatory pH monitoring: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine is commonly applied to improve the tolerance of esophageal manometry (EM) and ambulatory pH monitoring (PM). We recently published data suggesting a benefit to this practice and we aimed to confirm these findings in a randomized trial. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial of lidocaine nasal spray versus placebo (saline) before EM and PM. Patients referred to our center who met inclusion criteria were enrolled. Patients were asked to fill a questionnaire after their test and patient-reported adverse effects were compared. KEY RESULTS: Three hundred and four patients were enrolled in our trial. Lidocaine and placebo groups were demographically similar. The primary outcome, pain during catheter insertion, occurred in 60/148 (40.5%) patients in the lidocaine group versus in 72/152 (47.4%) patients in the placebo group (OR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.48-1.20]; p = 0.23). Patients receiving lidocaine were less likely to report nausea during test recording (OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.91]; p = 0.02) and reported slightly lower intensity of pain during both catheter insertion and test recording (4.68 ± 2.06 versus 5.41 ± 2.24 on 10; p = 0.048 and 3.71 ± 2.00 versus 4.93 ± 2.55 on 10; p = 0.03, respectively). Furthermore, patients receiving lidocaine were less likely to report their test as globally uncomfortable and painful (57% vs. 75%; p = 0.003 and 14% vs. 21%; p = 0.02, respectively). No events of systemic lidocaine toxicity occurred during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of lidocaine before esophageal function tests does not reduce pain during catheter insertion but may provide other modest benefits with limited toxicity.

Analysis of esophageal reflux after proximal gastrectomy measured by wireless ambulatory 24-hr esophageal pH monitoring and TC-99m diisopropyliminodiacetic acid (DISIDA) scan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Reflux is one of the most common sequela after proximal gastrectomy (PG). The aim of this study was to find a predicting factor related to the character of esophageal reflux after PG. METHODS: Wireless ambulatory 24-hr pH monitoring (for acid reflux, AR) and diisopropyliminodiacetic acid hepatobiliary scan (for bile reflux, BR) were performed on 24 patients who had reflux symptoms after PG with esophagogastrostomy from July 2008 to March 2009. Endoscopic examination was done and the length of remnant stomach (LoRS) was measure by postoperative UGI series. RESULTS: Eleven patients (45.8%) had only BR, 7 (29.2%) had AR only, Two patients (8.3%) had both acid and BR, and 3 (12.5%) had neither. The LoRS along greater curvature was significantly shorter in patients with only BR (16.11 +/- 2.87 cm) than in patients with only AR (23.69 +/- 6.15 cm, P = 0.003). Severity of symptoms or esophagitis was not significantly correlated with the content of acid or BR. CONCLUSION: Reflux symptom after PG is caused by either bile or acid rather than both. Character of reflux was related to the LoRS.

Simultaneous Laryngopharyngeal and Conventional Esophageal pH Monitoring.

In addition to typical reflux symptoms, many patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) present with extraesophageal symptoms such as cough, hoarseness or asthma, which can be caused by laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Due to their multifactorial origin, those symptoms can be a great diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Esophageal pH-monitoring is commonly used to determine abnormal esophageal acid exposure and confirm the diagnosis of GERD. However, for better evaluation of acid exposure above the upper esophageal sphincter, a new laryngopharyngeal pH measurement system is now available and may lead to more reliable results in patients with predominantly extraesophageal symptoms. This article aims to present a standardized protocol for simultaneous pH measurement using esophageal and laryngopharyngeal pH probes in order to obtain acid exposure scores from both measurements.

Retrieval of a Esophageal pH Monitoring Probe Dislodged Into the Laryngopharynx: A Case Report.

Esophageal pH monitoring via wireless probes is used to evaluate chest pain and atypical symptoms and diagnose gastroesophageal reflux. These probes are commonly placed during esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed by gastroenterologists in an ambulatory anesthesia setting. Dislodgment and aspiration of these probes can cause morbidity, require surgical removal, and involve the anesthesia provider in prolonged emergency care. We present a case of a probe dislodgment where aspiration was avoided and describe how retrieval of this device is different from typical hypopharyngeal foreign body removal.

Oesophageal pH monitoring using the Bravo catheter-free radio capsule.

OBJECTIVES: Oesophageal pH monitoring is the current standard for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The Bravo capsule allows 48-h monitoring without the need for a naso-oesophageal catheter. Our aim was to assess the Bravo capsule in terms of patient discomfort and interference with daily activities, and to determine if 48-h Bravo pH studies facilitate the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: Ambulatory pH studies were performed at two hospitals using either the Bravo capsule (n=100) or a conventional naso-oesophageal catheter (n=100). Participants were selected either for investigation of symptoms suggestive of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, or to follow-up antireflux surgery. All participants completed questionnaires to assess discomfort and interference with daily activities. RESULTS: Eighty-nine Bravo studies recorded at least 48 h of data, and 95 were diagnostic. Bravo participants reported significantly less discomfort during insertion (P<0.0001) and monitoring (P<0.0001), and less interference with daily activities (P<0.0001), eating (P<0.005), sleeping (P<0.0001) and work (P<0.0001). No significant difference was observed between day 1 and 2 median total time pH<4 (4.0 and 4.3%, P=0.64), erect time pH<4 (5.0 and 5.0%, P=0.56), supine time pH<4 (0.5 and 0.5%, P=0.23), and Johnson-DeMeester scores (15.9 and 16.2, P=0.90). Ten Bravo participants (10%) were diagnosed with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease using day 2 data after a normal day 1. CONCLUSIONS: The Bravo capsule significantly reduces the patient discomfort and interference with normal daily activities during pH monitoring associated with a naso-oesophageal catheter. Moreover, 48-h Bravo studies offer an advantage over conventional 24-h studies in diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Accuracy and tolerability of the Bravo catheter-free pH capsule in patients between the ages of 4 and 18 years.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if the Bravo pH capsule is comparable to the nasally placed pH catheter in terms of pH-metry, safety, and tolerability in children. METHODS: Ten patients each in the age ranges of 4 to 6 years, 7 to 10 years, and >10 years were tested simultaneously with the catheter and the capsule. Six each were tested with the catheter alone or the capsule alone. Subjects recorded adverse events and graded tolerance (in terms of activity, appetite, and satisfaction) on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 indicating that the device was well tolerated. A 24-hour reflux index and 24- and 48-hour reflux indices were generated from the catheter and capsule, respectively. Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to compare reflux index, tolerability, and adverse events between the catheter and capsule. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients 4 to 16 years of age (mean, 9.4 years) were enrolled. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean reflux indices (RIs) obtained simultaneously with the catheter and capsule in all patients combined on day 1 (P = 0.0665). There was a significant difference between day 2 and days 1 and 2 combined with the capsule versus the catheter (P = 0.007 and P = 0.0107); however, a discordant result of normal RI on day 1 and pathological RI on day 2 was seen in only 1 patient. The capsule was better tolerated than the catheter in terms of appetite (P = 0.029), activity (P = 0.001), and satisfaction (P = 0.003). There were no significant complications. CONCLUSIONS: The Bravo pH capsule was as accurate and safe and better tolerated than the conventional pH catheter in children 4 years of age and older.

Endoscopic pH monitoring for patients with suspected or refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Wireless pH studies can offer prolonged pH monitoring, which may potentially facilitate the diagnosis and management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the detection rate of abnormal esophageal acid exposure using prolonged pH monitoring in patients with suspected or refractory GERD symptoms. METHODS: Patients undergoing prolonged ambulatory pH studies for the evaluation of GERD-related symptoms were assessed. Patients with a known diagnosis of GERD were tested on medical therapy, while patients with suspected GERD were tested off therapy. The wireless pH capsules were placed during upper endoscopy 6 cm above the squamocolumnar junction. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one patients underwent a total of 198 pH studies. Fifty ambulatory pH studies (25%) were excluded from the analysis: 27 patients (14%) had insufficient data capture (less than 18 h on at least one day of monitoring), 15 patients had premature capsule release (7%), seven were repeat studies (3.5%) and one had intolerable pain requiring capsule removal (0.5%). There were 115 patients undergoing pH studies who were off medication, and 33 patients were on therapy. For the two groups of patients, results were as follows: 32 (28%) and 22 (67%) patients with normal studies on both days; 58 (50%) and five (15%) patients with abnormal studies on both days; 18 (16%) and three (9%) patients with abnormal studies on day 1 only; and seven (6%) and three (9%) patients with abnormal studies on day 2 only, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged 48 h pH monitoring can detect more abnormal esophageal acid exposure but is associated with a significant rate of incomplete studies.