The diagnostic value of computerized short-term oesophageal pH-monitoring in suspected gastro-oesophageal reflux

An evidence-based, Latin-American consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

In recognition of the high prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and its importance in Latin America, the InterAmerican Association of Gastroenterology and the InterAmerican Society of Digestive Endoscopy organized a Latin-American Consensus on GORD in Cancun, Mexico in September 2004. The main objectives of the consensus meeting were to provide evidence-based guidance with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of GORD, relevant to all countries in the region. The methodology, results and recommendations of the consensus are described in detail.

The diagnostic value of oesophageal radionuclide transit in patients admitted for but without acute myocardial infarction

The use of radionuclide transit (RT) as a screening test for chest pain of oesophageal origin has been debated. The aim of this study was to determine the value of RT as a screening test for oesophageal disorders in comparison with oesophageal manometry in patients admitted with acute chest pain but without acute myocardial infarction (non-AMI patients), and to assess the frequency of oesophageal disease present in these patients. A total of 222 non-AMI patients entered the study. An extensive examination programme comprised noninvasive cardiac studies, pulmonary studies, a careful physical examination of the musculoskeletal system, and oesophago-gastric examinations including endoscopy, pH monitoring of the oesophagus and a Bernstein test. In 91% of the patients one or more diagnoses were obtained. Based on clinical and laboratory data a 'consensus' diagnosis was made. With manometry as the reference RT had a poor sensitivity (35%) but an acceptable specificity (82%). With the consensus diagnosis as the gold standard the sensitivities of both manometry and RT were poor (29%), whereas the specificity of RT, but not of manometry, was very high (97%). Gastrointestinal diagnoses were found in 57% of the patients. In conclusion, none of the applied oesophageal examinations are valuable as single screening tests. Both RT and manometry have low sensitivities. RT may be used as a cheap, noninvasive and rapid supplementary examination. When positive, it strongly supports further invasive studies of the oesophagus in non-AMI patients with unexplained chest pain.

Inclusion of supine period in short-duration pH monitoring is essential in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Prolonged esophageal pH monitoring is the most accurate method for detecting abnormal gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, some investigators have found that short-duration postprandial pH monitoring in the upright position is also useful, while others have failed to find such results. Therefore, we have compared a 6-hr period of pH monitoring (3-hr postprandial period after daytime meal and 3-hr supine period) with a total 24-hr period in detecting abnormal gastroesophageal reflux. Sixty-five patients (44 men, mean age 41.3 years) with GERD and 16 healthy volunteers (11 men, mean age 34.3 years) underwent 24-hr pH monitoring according to a standard protocol. Various reflux parameters during 24-hr pH monitoring were compared with reflux parameters during the 6-hr period. Abnormal GER was detected in 56 patients presenting with typical symptoms of GERD (sensitivity 86.2%). These patients could be further divided into upright (N = 18), supine (N = 15), and combined (N = 23) refluxers, depending on the posture in which abnormal reflux occurred. Esophageal pH monitoring during the 3-hr postprandial upright period showed abnormal reflux in only 35 patients (sensitivity 53.8%; P < 0.00005, compared with the 24-hr pH monitoring period). Abnormal GER was identified in 13 of 18 upright, 19 of 23 combined, and only one of 15 supine refluxers, as well as in two of nine patients with normal 24-hr pH-metry. However, inclusion of the 3-hr supine monitoring period in the 3-hr postprandial upright period improved detection of abnormal GER to 78.5% (51 patients; P = NS compared with 24-hr pH monitoring period). This was related mainly to improved detection of abnormal GER in supine refluxers (11 of 15; 73.3%). Esophageal acid exposure time correlated significantly with severity of esophagitis only during the total and supine periods of both the 24- and 6-hr periods and not during the upright period. Esophageal acid clearance correlated significantly with increasing grades of esophagitis for the supine and total periods only. We conclude that 3-hr postprandial pH monitoring, as has been conventionally practiced, is not appropriate in the detection of abnormal GER; inclusion of a supine period in the short-duration pH monitoring schedule increases the detection of pathological reflux. We therefore recommend that a supine period should be included in short-duration pH monitoring schedules. We also found that supine reflex was the most important factor in the development of esophagitis.

pH monitoring: the gold standard in detection of gastrointestinal reflux disease?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequent benign diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and in some cases the diagnosis may be very difficult. There are many diagnostic procedures but none of them could prove or definitely exclude the disease. The 24-h pH-monitoring is the "gold standard" for detection of gastroesophageal reflux and in many patients the reflux correlates with the GERD. The evaluation of a diagnostic method has to be done in a similar manner to the evaluation of therapeutic study (phase 1 to phase 4). For the definition of the "gold standard" for detection of a special diagnosis (e.g., the gastresophageal reflux disease), the results of phase 3 studies for different methods had to be compared. The method with the best values for sensitivity and specificity is yet to be discovered. Until now, pH monitoring has been the gold standard for the diagnosis of GERD. However, there are many problems connected with using this method in clinical practice.

Sucralfate versus cimetidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis, with special reference to the esophageal motor function

Sixty patients entered a double-blind clinical trial comparing the effect of 1 g of sucralfate granulate given four times daily and cimetidine, 400 mg twice daily. Twenty-six patients treated with sucralfate and 26 treated with cimetidine were examined with short-term pH monitoring before and after 12 weeks of treatment. Thirty patients, 19 treated with cimetidine and 11 treated with sucralfate, had esophageal motility studied by a radionuclide test before and after 12 weeks of treatment. The efficacy of the treatments was judged by symptoms and endoscopic response after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. The endpoint healing rate was approximately 60% in both groups and symptoms were relieved in half of the patients in both groups (difference not significant). The effect of the treatments on pH and number of spikes reflected the different pharmacodynamic profiles of the drugs, whereas the mean transit time (MTT) was not changed by the treatments. The residual activity after radionuclide transit in the sitting position was significantly increased after treatment with cimetidine. The data support the hypothesis that primary dysmotility might be involved in the pathogenesis of reflux esophagitis in about 33% of the patients. Possibilities for a combination therapy with sucralfate and cimetidine are stressed.

Sucralfate versus cimetidine in reflux oesophagitis. The effect on oesophageal pH and motility

Sixty patients with endoscopically verified oesophagitis entered a double-blind study comparing the effect of 1 g of sucralfate granulate given four times a day and cimetidine, 400 mg twice a day. Fifty-two patients, 26 treated with cimetidine and 26 with sucralfate, were examined with short-term pH monitoring before and after 12 weeks of treatment. In about half of the patients, 19 treated with cimetidine and 11 treated with sucralfate, the oesophageal motility was studied with a radionuclide test before and after treatment. The sucralfate treatment did not affect either mean pH or the emptying rate but reduced the number of spikes. The cimetidine treatment increased mean pH and reduced the number of spikes but did not affect emptying rates. Both groups had significantly prolonged mean transit time (MTT) compared with healthy volunteers. MTT did not change after either treatment. The residual activity in the sitting position was significantly increased after cimetidine. It is concluded that the pharmacodynamic effect on oesophageal motility is different for the two drugs in question. Primary dysmotility might be involved in the pathogenesis of oesophagitis.