Catheter-based pH monitoring: use in evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (on and off therapy)

An oropharyngeal pH monitoring device to evaluate patients with chronic laryngitis

BACKGROUND

Diagnostics for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) are suboptimal because of limited sensitivity. We performed in vitro and in vivo studies to systematically assess the performance characteristics of an oropharyngeal pH probe.

METHODS

In vitro studies compared the oropharyngeal probe with a standard pH catheter in liquid and aerosolized solutions, pH 1-7. The accuracy of measurements, deviation from target pH, and time to equilibrium pH were determined. Simultaneous distal esophageal pH measurements were obtained in 11 patients with GERD. Oropharyngeal and distal esophageal reflux parameters were measured for controls (n = 20), patients with GERD (n = 17), and patients with chronic laryngitis (n = 10).

KEY RESULTS

In the liquid phase, at pH 4-5, the oropharyngeal probe had less deviation from the target value than the standard catheter; deviation in the vapor phase was similar (0.4 pH units). Median (interquartile) time to reach equilibrium pH was significantly (P < 0.001) faster with the oropharyngeal than the standard probe. In comparing simultaneous distal esophageal pH characteristics, 96% of recordings with the new and standard probes were in agreement to within ± 1.0 pH unit; 71% of recordings were in agreement within ± 0.5 pH units. Patients with chronic laryngitis had significantly higher levels of oropharyngeal acid exposure at pH <4, <5, and <6, in the upright position than patients with GERD or controls (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Oropharyngeal pH monitoring appears to be more sensitive than traditional pH monitoring in evaluation of patients with extraesophageal reflux. It is a promising tool in evaluation of this difficult group of patients.

Technical problems produced by the Bravo pH test in nonerosive reflux disease patients

AIM: To evaluate the technical failures of the Bravo pH test in a population with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS: Over the course of a year, we prospectively studied a population of 66 nonerosive reflux disease patients who received a Bravo pH test. The number and frequency of all technical failures were documented, quantified and analyzed.

RESULTS: A total of 66 patients, with a mean age of 41.7 years, were studied. Technical failures occurred in 15.15% of the sample. The most frequent failures were due to poor data reception (4.5%), early dislodgement (4.5%) and capsule removal (6.1%).

CONCLUSION: The Bravo capsule pH test involves a low but non-negligible rate of technical problems, a fact that must always be considered by physicians.

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.