Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters











Publication year range
1.
Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed) ; 85(4): 428-436, 2020.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32773251

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the establishment of preventive measures against contagion during the performance of diagnostic and therapeutic tests in gastroenterology. Digestive tract motility tests involve an intermediate and elevated risk for the transmission of COVID-19 infection. Given their elective or non-urgent indication in the majority of cases, we recommend postponing those tests until significant control of the infection rate in each Latin American country has been achieved during the pandemic. When the health authorities allow the return to normality, and in the absence of an effective treatment for or preventive vaccine against COVID-19 infection, we recommend a strict protocol for classifying patients according to their infectious-contagious status through the appropriate use of tests for the detection of the virus and the immune response to it, and the following of protective measures by the healthcare personnel to prevent contagion during the performance of a gastrointestinal motility test.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Gastroenterology/standards , Gastrointestinal Diseases/diagnosis , Infection Control/standards , Neurology/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Breath Tests , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Esophageal pH Monitoring/standards , Gastrointestinal Diseases/therapy , Gastrointestinal Motility , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Latin America , Manometry/standards , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Societies, Medical
3.
Arq. gastroenterol ; Arq. gastroenterol;45(4): 261-267, out.-dez. 2008. tab
Article in Portuguese | LILACS | ID: lil-502134

ABSTRACT

RACIONAL: Por padronização aceita internacionalmente, posiciona-se o sensor distal de pHmetria esofágica a 5 cm acima da borda superior do esfíncter inferior do esôfago, localizado por manometria esofágica. Porém, vários autores sugerem técnicas alternativas de posicionamento que prescindem da manometria. Dentre essas, destaca-se a da viragem do pH, tema este controverso pela sua duvidosa confiabilidade. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a adequação do posicionamento do sensor distal de pHmetria pela técnica de viragem do pH, considerando-se a presença, o tipo e o grau de erro de posicionamento que tal técnica proporciona, e também estudar a influência da posição adotada pelo paciente durante a técnica da viragem. MÉTODOS: Foram estudados de modo prospectivo, durante o período de 1 ano, 1.031 pacientes. Durante entrevista clínica, foram registrados os dados demográficos e as queixas clínicas apresentadas. Todos foram submetidos a manometria esofágica para localização do esfíncter inferior do esôfago e a técnica da viragem do pH. A identificação do ponto de viragem foi realizada de dois modos distintos, caracterizando dois grupos de estudo: com o paciente sentado (grupo I - 450 pacientes) e com o paciente em decúbito dorsal horizontal (grupo II - 581 pacientes). Após a identificação do ponto de viragem, o sensor distal de pHmetria era posicionado na posição padronizada, baseada na localização manométrica do esfíncter. Registrava-se onde seria posicionado o sensor de pH se fosse adotada a técnica da viragem. Para avaliação da adequação do posicionamento, considerou-se que o erro é representado pela diferença (em centímetros) entre a localização padronizada (manométrica) e a localização que seria adotada caso fosse empregada a técnica da viragem. Considerou-se que o erro seria grosseiro se fosse maior que 2 cm. Analisou-se também o tipo de erro mais freqüente (se acima ou abaixo da posição padronizada). Foram incluídos todos pacientes que aceitaram participar...


BACKGROUND: By internationally accepted standardization, the esophageal pH-meter distal sensor is positioned 5 cm above the superior border of the lower esophageal sphincter, identified by esophageal manometry. However, several authors suggest alternative positioning techniques that leave out the manometry; among such techniques, the pH step-up is the one to be pointed out. This subject is controversial; some publications state that the step-up technique is not reliable while some others consider it reliable. AIMS: Considering the existent controversy and the small number of prospective works with suitable sample and methodology, we have idealized the present study, that aims the evaluation of the suitability of the pH-meter distal sensor positioning based on the step-up technique, by analyzing the presence, the type and the degree of the error of positioning that such technique provides and the influence of the position adopted by the patient during the procedure. METHODS: One thousand and thirty one patients conducted to the esophageal pH-meter procedure were studied in a prospective way. During the clinical interview, the demographic data and the presented clinical complaints were registered. All the patients were submitted to both esophageal manometry in order to localize the lower esophageal sphincter and the pH step-up technique, that consists of the introduction of the pH-meter sensor in the gastric chamber and in the sensor's gradual traction until the pH steps up to levels over 4. The step-up point was identified by two distinct ways, characterizing two study groups: with the sitting patient (group I - 450 patients) and with the patient in supine position (group II - 581 patients). After the step-up point identification, the pH-meter distal sensor was placed in the standard position (based on the sphincter manometric placement). It was registered where the pH sensor would be positioned if the step-up technique were adopted. To...


Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Diagnostic Errors/statistics & numerical data , Esophageal pH Monitoring/standards , Gastroesophageal Reflux/diagnosis , Manometry/methods , Posture/physiology , Electrodes, Implanted , Esophageal pH Monitoring/instrumentation , Manometry/standards , Prospective Studies , Statistics, Nonparametric , Supine Position/physiology , Young Adult
5.
Arq Gastroenterol ; 45(4): 261-7, 2008.
Article in Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19148352

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: By internationally accepted standardization, the esophageal pH-meter distal sensor is positioned 5 cm above the superior border of the lower esophageal sphincter, identified by esophageal manometry. However, several authors suggest alternative positioning techniques that leave out the manometry; among such techniques, the pH step-up is the one to be pointed out. This subject is controversial; some publications state that the step-up technique is not reliable while some others consider it reliable. AIMS: Considering the existent controversy and the small number of prospective works with suitable sample and methodology, we have idealized the present study, that aims the evaluation of the suitability of the pH-meter distal sensor positioning based on the step-up technique, by analyzing the presence, the type and the degree of the error of positioning that such technique provides and the influence of the position adopted by the patient during the procedure. METHODS: One thousand and thirty one patients conducted to the esophageal pH-meter procedure were studied in a prospective way. During the clinical interview, the demographic data and the presented clinical complaints were registered. All the patients were submitted to both esophageal manometry in order to localize the lower esophageal sphincter and the pH step-up technique, that consists of the introduction of the pH-meter sensor in the gastric chamber and in the sensor's gradual traction until the pH steps up to levels over 4. The step-up point was identified by two distinct ways, characterizing two study groups: with the sitting patient (group I - 450 patients) and with the patient in supine position (group II - 581 patients). After the step-up point identification, the pH-meter distal sensor was placed in the standard position (based on the sphincter manometric placement). It was registered where the pH sensor would be positioned if the step-up technique were adopted. To evaluate the positioning suitability, the error was considered to be represented by the difference (in centimeters) between the suitable placement (manometry) and the one that would be adopted in case the step-up technique were adopted. The positioning error was considered rough if it were larger than 2 cm. The most frequent type of error was also analyzed (if above or below the standard position). RESULTS: It was observed that if the step-up technique were adopted, there would be error in the sensor positioning in 945 patients (91.6%). In terms of error degree, there would be a rough error in 597 (63.2%) cases. Concerning the type of error, the sensor would be positioned below the standard place in 857 (90.7%) patients. As to the interference of the position adopted by the patient during the step-up technique, it was observed that there was no significant difference among the groups of study in any of the analyzed parameters. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The positioning of the pH-meter distal sensor by the step-up technique is not reliable; 2. the step-up technique provides expressive error margin; 3. the most common type of error that such technique mode provides is the placement of the sensor below the standard positioning, which may overestimate the reflux occurrence; 4. there is no influence in the position adopted by the patient during the pH step-up technique procedure, in terms of method efficiency.


Subject(s)
Diagnostic Errors/statistics & numerical data , Esophageal pH Monitoring/standards , Gastroesophageal Reflux/diagnosis , Manometry/methods , Posture/physiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Electrodes, Implanted , Esophageal pH Monitoring/instrumentation , Female , Humans , Male , Manometry/standards , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Statistics, Nonparametric , Supine Position/physiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL