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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Additional Role of Symptom-Reflux Association Analysis of Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Using Bravo Capsule pH Test].

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Since the development of ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring test to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), several parameters have been introduced. The aim of this study was to assess whether using the symptom index (SI), symptom sensitivity index (SSI), and symptom association probability (SAP), in addition to the DeMeester score (DS), would be useful for interpreting the Bravo pH monitoring test. METHODS: A retrospective study, which included 68 patients with reflux symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy who underwent a Bravo capsule pH test between October 2006 and May 2015, was carried out. Acid reflux parameters and symptom reflux association parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: The median percent time of total pH<4 and DS were 2.90% (interquartile range [IQR] 1.13-6.03%) and 11.10 (IQR 4.90-22.80), respectively. According to the analysis of the day-to-day variation in percent time of total pH<4 (r=0.724) and DS (r=0.537), there was a significant correlation between Day 1 and Day 2. The positive rate of Bravo test according to DS was 27 (39.7%). Although thirty patients experienced symptoms during the test, there were no significant differences of reflux parameters compared with other patients. In the symptom group, 7 patients (23.3%) were identified as having negative DS and an abnormal symptom-related index. There were no significant test-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the analysis of traditional acid parameters of the Bravo capsule pH test, diagnosis of GERD, including reflux hypersensitivity, can be improved by performing an analysis of the symptom-reflux association and of the day-to-day variation.

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.

Gastric perforation following endoscopic removal of a Bravo pH capsule in a cat.

A 7-year-old domestic shorthair cat was evaluated for hyporexia and weight loss following endoscopic placement of an intragastric pH monitoring device. Physical examination of the cat was unremarkable, and its blood work was notable for a mild hypoalbuminemia. The cat's acute hyporexia and weight loss was attributed to discomfort associated with the intragastric pH monitoring device, as has been reported in humans. Endoscopic removal of the intragastric pH monitoring device resulted in gastric perforation. The cat underwent exploratory laparotomy for surgical resection and repair of the perforated area. To our knowledge, this is the first report of gastric perforation secondary to removal of a Bravo pH capsule. Caution may be advised when considering intragastric pH capsule removal in cats.

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.

Wireless esophageal pH capsule for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a multicenter clinical study.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility and safety of pH capsule to monitor pH in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Ninety-one patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD were enrolled in this study, 46 of whom were randomized to the pH capsule group; the remaining 45 patients used the conventional catheter and pH capsule simultaneously. The pH data and traces were recorded via automatic analysis, and capsule detachment was assessed using X-ray images. All of the patients were required to complete a questionnaire regarding tolerance with the capsule. RESULTS: The capsules were successfully attached on the first attempt, and no early detachment of the capsules was observed. Compared to the 24-h pH data recorded with the conventional catheter, the data collected with the pH capsule showed no significant differences in 24-h esophageal acid exposure. The measurements of esophageal acid exposure over 24 h collected with the two devices showed a significant correlation (r(2) = 0.996, P < 0.001). Capsule detachment occurred spontaneously in 89 patients, and 2 capsules required endoscopic removal due to chest pain. The capsule was associated with less interference with daily activity. CONCLUSION: The wireless pH capsule provides a feasible and safe method for monitoring gastroesophageal reflux and therefore may serve as an important tool for diagnosing GERD.

[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.

Approach to the patient with presumed extraoesophageal GERD.

Reflux related cough, asthma and laryngitis are frequently encountered and are considered part of extraoesophageal syndromes. The diagnosis of extraoesophageal reflux is difficult due to the lack of gold standard diagnostic criteria. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and esophageal pH monitoring are inadequate diagnostic tools for due to poor sensitivity and specificity. For this reason, empirical PPI therapy is recommended as an initial approach to diagnose and treat the potential underlying cause of these symptoms in patients without alarm symptoms. Diagnostic testing with esophageal pH and/or impedance monitoring and esophageal motility testing is usually reserved for those who continue to be symptomatic despite a trial of therapy with PPIs. Recent developments have increased our understanding of this difficult to treat group of patients but more research into reflux related extraoesophageal symptoms are needed to better diagnose and treat this group.

Comparative study of two modes of gastroesophageal reflux measuring: conventional esophageal pH monitoring and wireless pH monitoring.

CONTEXT: Esophageal pH monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal acid reflux. However, this method is very troublesome and considerably limits the patient's routine activities. Wireless pH monitoring was developed to avoid these restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the first 24 hours of the conventional and wireless pH monitoring, positioned 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter, in relation to: the occurrence of relevant technical failures, the ability to detect reflux and the ability to correlate the clinical symptoms to reflux. METHODS: Twenty-five patients referred for esophageal pH monitoring and with typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease were studied prospectively, underwent clinical interview, endoscopy, esophageal manometry and were submitted, with a simultaneous initial period, to 24-hour catheter pH monitoring and 48-hour wireless pH monitoring. RESULTS: Early capsule detachment occurred in one (4%) case and there were no technical failures with the catheter pH monitoring (P = 0.463). Percentages of reflux time (total, upright and supine) were higher with the wireless pH monitoring (P < 0.05). Pathological gastroesophageal reflux occurred in 16 (64%) patients submitted to catheter and in 19 (76%) to the capsule (P = 0.355). The symptom index was positive in 12 (48%) patients with catheter pH monitoring and in 13 (52%) with wireless pH monitoring (P = 0.777). CONCLUSIONS: 1) No significant differences were reported between the two methods of pH monitoring (capsule vs catheter), in regard to relevant technical failures; 2) Wireless pH monitoring detected higher percentages of reflux time than the conventional pH-metry; 3) The two methods of pH monitoring were comparable in diagnosis of pathological gastroesophageal reflux and comparable in correlating the clinical symptoms with the gastroesophageal reflux.