TITLE

Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different?

AUTHOR(S)
Pandolfino, J. E.; Zhang, Q.; Schreiner, M. A.; Ghosh, S.; Roth, M. P.; Kahrilas, P. J.
PUB. DATE
December 2005
SOURCE
Gut;Dec2005, Vol. 54 Issue 12, p1687
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study analysed the relative accuracy of the Bravo wireless and the Slimline catheter-Mark Ill Digitrapper pH systems in the detection of acid reflux events. Methods: Twenty five asymptomatic subjects were studied. A Bravo capsule was placed 6 cm above the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ), marked by an endoclip, and a Slimline pH catheter was placed 5 cm above the manometrically localised lower oesophageal sphincter . The distance between the SCI and each pH electrode was measured fluoroscopically. An in vivo pH reference was established using swallows of orange juice (pH 3.88). Concurrent pH data from the two systems were analysed in Excel spreadsheets. Results: Significantly more acid reflux events were reported by the Digitrapper system than the Bravo system (117.0 v 41.8). This was not explained by electrode position as there was no difference in median distance between the SCJ and either pH electrode (7.25 cm v 7.08 cm). The dominant source of discrepancy between systems was inaccuracy in electrode calibration and, after adjustment using the in vivo orange juice pH measurement, the discrepancy improved by 40%. However, discrepancy still existed and was most pronounced with short reflux events (1-15 s for the catheter, 1-17 s for the Bravo) associated with minimal intraoesophageal acidity and poor concordance between systems. Conclusion: Substantially more reflux events were reported by the Digitrapper system compared with the Bravo system; 40% of excess events were attributable to a flawed software scheme for electrode thermal calibration while most of the remainder were brief events with poor reproducibility between systems.
ACCESSION #
19160188

 

Related Articles

  • Urinary catheter blockage depends on urine pH, calcium and rate of flow. Burr, R G; Nuseibeh, I M // Spinal Cord;Aug1997, Vol. 35 Issue 8, p521 

    Urinary catheters tend to block when biofilm from urease-producing organisms build up on the catheter surface. This is a locally-occurring process that influences and is influenced by the composition of the urine. In this work we relate urine pH and calcium to catheter blockage and suggest how...

  • Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo). des Varannes, S. Bruley; Mion, F.; Ducrotté, P.; Zerbib, F.; Denis, P.; Ponchon, T.; Thibault, R.; Galmiche, J. P. // Gut;Dec2005, Vol. 54 Issue 12, p1682 

    Objectives: Oesophageal ph monitoring is a useful test for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) but has some limitations related to the nasopharyngeal electrode. Recently, a telemetric catheter free system (CFS) (Bravo; Medtronic) was developed. The aim of this study was to...

  • Lack of Correlation Between a Self-Administered Subjective GERD Questionnaire and Pathologic GERD Diagnosed by 24-h Esophageal pH Monitoring. Chan, Kevin; Liu, Geoffrey; Miller, Linda; Ma, Clement; Xu, Wei; Schlachta, Christopher M.; Darling, Gail // Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery;Mar2010, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p427 

    Self-reported reflux symptoms do not always correspond to pathologic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We evaluated whether GERD-related symptoms in the self-reported Mayo-GERD questionnaire (GERDQ) were correlated with current gold standard definitions of pathologic GERD. Three hundred...

  • Evaluation of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Using the Bravo Capsule pH System. Lawenko, Rona Marie A.; Yeong Yeh Lee // Journal of Neurogastroenterology & Motility;Jan2016, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p25 

    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...

  • indicator.  // Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (2009);2009, Issue 21, p1180 

    A reference entry for the term "indicator" which refers to a substance used to determine pH is presented.

  • Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Pandolfino, John E.; Richter, Joel E.; Ours, Tina; Guardino, Jason M.; Chapman, Jennifer; Kahrilas, Peter J. // American Journal of Gastroenterology;Apr2003, Vol. 98 Issue 4, p740 

    : ObjectivesLimitations of catheter-based esophageal pH monitoring are discomfort, inconvenience, and interference with normal activity. An alternative to conventional pH monitoring is the wireless Medtronic Bravo pH System. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, performance, and...

  • Esophageal pH-Impedance Monitoring and Symptom Analysis in GERD: A Study in Patients off and on Therapy. Zerbib, Frank; Roman, Sabine; Ropert, Alain; des Varannes, Stanislas Bruley; Pouderoux, Philippe; Chaput, Ulriikka; Mion, François; Vérin, Eric; Galmiche, Jean-Paul; Sifrim, Daniel // American Journal of Gastroenterology;Sep2006, Vol. 101 Issue 9, p1956 

    INTRODUCTION: Combined esophageal pH-impedance monitoring allows detection of nearly all gastroesophageal reflux episodes, acid as well as nonacid. However, the role of nonacid reflux in the pathogenesis of symptoms is poorly known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of...

  • Is Wireless Capsule pH Monitoring Better Than Catheter Systems? Joon Seong Lee // Journal of Neurogastroenterology & Motility;2012, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p117 

    The article focuses on the evaluation of catheter-based pH monitoring and catheter-free wireless pH monitoring on the basis of patient convenience for diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. It mentions wireless system better over catheter system as it shows variable sensitivity and...

  • Fertilizer Changes Growing Mix pH. STEINKAMP, ROBERT // Greenhouse Grower;Jan2014, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p54 

    The article looks at the four factors influencing pH, namely mix, water, fertilizer, and crop, for proper pH management. It highlights the changes brought by introducing elements to the growing mix pH levels as well as emphasizes the significance of classifying fertilizer in managing pH. The...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sign out of this library

Other Topics