Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: establishing values in a multiracial cohort of asymptomatic Asian subjects

Guidance on performance and reporting of high-resolution oesophageal manometry and ambulatory pH monitoring in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to provide a practical and evidence-based guide on the indications, performance and reporting of high-resolution oesophageal manometry (HRM) and ambulatory pH monitoring (PHM) in adult patients in Singapore.

METHODS

The guideline committee comprised local gastroenterologists from public and private sectors with particular expertise in aspects of HRM and PHM, and it was tasked to produce evidence-based statements on the indications, performance and reporting of these tests. Each committee member performed literature searches to retrieve relevant articles within the context of domains to which they were assigned.

RESULTS

Twelve recommendation statements were created and summarised.

CONCLUSION

Standardising key aspects of HRM and PHM is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care. We reported the development of recommendations for the performance and interpretation of HRM and ambulatory reflux monitoring in Singapore.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for oesophageal manometry and oesophageal reflux monitoring

These guidelines on oesophageal manometry and gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring supersede those produced in 2006. Since 2006 there have been significant technological advances, in particular, the development of high resolution manometry (HRM) and oesophageal impedance monitoring. The guidelines were developed by a guideline development group of patients and representatives of all the relevant professional groups using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A systematic literature search was performed and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of the recommendations made. Key strong recommendations are made regarding the benefit of: (i) HRM over standard manometry in the investigation of dysphagia and, in particular, in characterising achalasia, (ii) adjunctive testing with larger volumes of water or solids during HRM, (iii) oesophageal manometry prior to antireflux surgery, (iv) pH/impedance monitoring in patients with reflux symptoms not responding to high dose proton pump inhibitors and (v) pH monitoring in all patients with reflux symptoms responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned, but combined pH/impedance monitoring in those not responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG.

Does DeMeester score still define GERD?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) clinical presentation may encompass a myriad of symptoms that may mimic other esophageal and extra-esophageal diseases. Thus, GERD diagnosis by symptoms only may be inaccurate. Upper digestive endoscopy and barium esophagram may also be misleading. pH monitoring must be added often for a definitive diagnosis. The DeMeester score (DMS) is a composite score of the acid exposure during a prolonged ambulatory pH monitoring that has been used since 1970s to categorize patients as GERD+ or GERD-. We showed in this review that DMS has some limitations and strengths. Although there is not a single instrument to precisely diagnose GERD in all of its variances, pH monitoring analyzed at the light of DMS is still a reliable method for scientific purposes as well as for clinical decision making. There are no data that show that acid exposure time is superior-or for that matter inferior-as compared to DMS.

Trajectory assessment is useful when day-to-day esophageal acid exposure varies in prolonged wireless pH monitoring

Acid exposure time commonly varies from day-to-day in prolonged wireless pH monitoring. Thus, diagnosis based on the number of days with abnormal acid burden may be misleading or inconclusive. We hypothesize that assessing longitudinal patterns of acid exposure may be diagnostically useful. Therefore, this study aims to describe acid exposure trajectories and evaluate agreement between identified trajectory patterns and conventional grouping. In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed patients with nonresponse to proton pump inhibitor therapy who underwent wireless pH monitoring (≥72 h) off therapy between August 2010 and September 2016. The primary outcome was esophageal acid exposure time. Subjects were grouped as 0, 1, 2, and 3+ days positive based on number of days with an acid exposure time >5.0%. Latent class group-based mixture model identified distinct longitudinal acid exposure trajectory groups. Of 212 subjects included 44%, 18%, 14%, and 24% had 0, 1, 2, 3+ days positive, respectively. Group-based modeling identified three significantly stable acid exposure trajectories: low (64%), middle (28%), and high (8%). Trajectory grouping and days positive grouping agreed substantially (weighted K 0.69; 95% CI: 0.63-0.76). Trajectory grouping identified 62% of subjects with conventionally inconclusive studies (one or two days positive) into the low trajectory. Agreement between trajectory groups when using three versus four days of monitoring was substantial (K 0.70; CI: 0.61-0.78). In summary, we found that patients with nonresponse to proton pump inhibitors follow three acid exposure trajectories over prolonged pH-monitoring periods: low, middle, and high. Compared to conventional day positive grouping, the trajectory modeling identified the majority of inconclusive days positive into the low trajectory group. Analyzing prolonged wireless pH data according to trajectories may be a complimentary method to conventional grouping, and may increase precision and accuracy in identifying acid burden.

[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.

Evaluation of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Using the Bravo Capsule pH System

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a disease predominantly seen in the West but there is a rising trend in Asia. Ambulatory 24-hour catheter-based pH monitoring has been the de facto gold standard test for GERD that correlates symptoms with acid reflux episodes. However, drawbacks such as patients’ discomfort, and catheter displacement render the test as cumbersome and error-prone. The Bravo pH wireless system is designed to be user-friendly and has an added advantage of prolonged pH monitoring. The system is comparable to the catheter-based pH monitoring system in terms of diagnostic yield and symptom-reflux association. Indications include evaluation of patients with refractory GERD symptoms and prior to anti-reflux surgery. Bravo utilizes a wireless pH-sensing capsule with a complete prepackaged system, and a data processing software. The capsule may be positioned indirectly using endoscopic or manometric landmarks or under direct endoscopic guidance. Optimal threshold cut-off values are yet to be standardized but based on available studies, for the Asian population, it may be recommended for total % time pH < 4 of 5.8 over 48 hours. Cost is a limitation but capsule placement is relatively safe although technical failures may be seen in small percentage of cases.