Help
Subscribe


GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy

 19 February 2018

Advanced search
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News  
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Classical Cases
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links




Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS

News

Detecting reflux before and after a meal

A study in this month's Digestive Diseases & Sciences finds that impedance monitoring is better than manometry and pH monitoring in reflux detection before and after a meal.

News image

fiogf49gjkf04

Combining gastroesophagael reflux disease (GERD) tests allows strengths and weaknesses of each method to be identified in detecting reflux.

Dr Steven Shay and colleagues compared 2 methods that measure bolus volume to pH monitoring, which measures change in acid concentration of a refluxant.

The methods for measuring bolus volume of a refluxant included impedance monitoring and manometry.

The researchers studied 19 symptomatic gastroesophagal reflux disease patients and 10 normal volunteers before and after a meal.

All had 2-hour simultaneous manometry, pH, and impedance monitoring.

The team measured reflux by a fall in pH from above to below 4.

There were 973 reflux in all subjects, but only 19% were detected simultaneously by all 3 methods.

Impedance monitoring detected 96% of reflux's, 76% were detected by manometry, and 28% by pH probe.

Researchers found that impedance monitoring was the only method to detect 15% of reflux's, while detection only by pH probe or manometry was rare.

Most reflux's detected by impedance monitoring were detected simultaneously by manometry.

Impedance monitoring detected 96% of reflux's vs 28% detected by pH probe
Difestive Diseases & Sciences

The team noted that reflux's not detected by manometry were usually in blind spots either in the vulnerable period 2 to 3 sec after a swallow.

Reflux's during a posture change, or during a Valsalva were also not detected by manometry.

The researchers observed that most relux's detected by impedance monitoring were not detected by the pH probe.

Though most liquid reflux's fasting were detected by pH, the researchers found that most liquid postprandial reflux's were not.

The research team noted that this was due primarily to weakly acidic rather than superimposed acid reflux's.

Bolus clearing time by impedance monitoring and manometry was nearly identical.

In comparison, the team detected that acid clearing was 3-fold longer than bolus clearing by impedance monitoring or manometry.

Dr Shay's team conclude, “Impedance monitoring is better than manometry and pH monitoring in reflux detection before and after a meal, and manometry in determining reflux composition as liquid or gas.”

“The pH probe measures reflux acidity and acid clearing.”

“Simultaneous impedance and pH combines the two methods strengths, and is a powerful tool for reflux detection and characterization.”

Dig Dis & Sci 2005: 50(9): 1573
19 August 2005

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

 19 February 2018 
The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in the right colon was not significantly different from that in the left colon/rectum
 19 February 2018 
No significant differences, among racial or ethnic groups, found in patients with significant fibrosis
 19 February 2018 
Hydrogen production greater in patients on a fructan-containing diet, than those following a maltodextrin-containing diet

 16 February 2018 
Undetected celiac in the elderly
 16 February 2018 
Inflammatory bowel diseases are global diseases
 16 February 2018 
Fructans induce non-celiac gluten sensitivity
 15 February 2018 
Oral direct-acting antiviral treatment for Hep C virus genotype 1
 15 February 2018 
NSAIDS and GI damage
 15 February 2018 
Primary vs secondary surgery for the presence of lymph node metastasis
 14 February 2018 
Management of hemorrhoids in the USA
 14 February 2018 
Predicting adenoma detection rate
 14 February 2018 
Normal bowel frequency characterization in the USA 
 13 February 2018 
Prebiotics improve endothelial dysfunction
 13 February 2018 
Personalising treatment options for IBS
 13 February 2018 
Diagnostic criteria for a Rome IV functional gastrointestinal disorders
 12 February 2018 
Visceral hypersensitivity and functional GI disorders
 12 February 2018 
Depression and aggressive IBD
 12 February 2018 
Variability in interpretation of endoscopic findings impacts patient management
 09 February 2018 
Treatment of choice for anastomotic stricture in IBD
 09 February 2018 
PRO measurement information system 
 09 February 2018 
Overall disease severity indices for IBD
 08 February 2018 
Prediction of endoscopically active disease

 08 February 2018 
Steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis
 08 February 2018 
Decision aid used by IBD patients
 07 February 2018 
Ursodeoxycholic acid combined with bezafibrate for itching
 07 February 2018 
Change in microbiome in gastritis vs gastric carcinoma
 07 February 2018 
Colorectal cancer and primary sclerosing cholangitis-IBD
 06 February 2018 
Risk of death after liver transplantation
 06 February 2018 
Crohn’s disease vs refractory pouchitis
 06 February 2018 
Support for functional dyspepsia symptom diary
 05 February 2018 
Helicobacter spp influence on GI tract 
 05 February 2018 
No link found between severe reflux and all-cause mortality 
 05 February 2018 
Psychological distress in PPI non-responders
 02 February 2018 
Assessing psychosexual impact of IBD
 02 February 2018 
Decrease in overall mortality with cholera vaccination
 02 February 2018 
Diagnostic performance of fecal immunochemical tests
 01 February 2018 
Screening frequency with family histories of colorectal cancer
 01 February 2018 
IBD and sport participation
 01 February 2018 
Life with a stoma 
 31 January 2018 
Aprepitant and gastroparesis 
 31 January 2018 
Anesthesia risk in colonoscopy
 31 January 2018 
GED-0301 for Crohn's Disease
 30 January 2018 
Intestinal dysbiosis and allergic diseases in infants
 30 January 2018 
Fructans and IBS symptoms in children
 29 January 2018 
Dosing calculator for therapy optimization in IBD
 29 January 2018 
Glecaprevir–pibrentasvir for in HCV
 29 January 2018 
Food allergen injections in eosinophilic esophagitis
 29 January 2018 
Reliability of the IBD index
 26 January 2018 
Tofacitinib vs biological therapies for ulcerative colitis
 26 January 2018 
Optimizing selection of biologics in IBD
 26 January 2018 
Nutritional risk and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy outcomes
 25 January 2018 
Patient-reported outcome measure for functional dyspepsia
 25 January 2018 
Predicting intra-abdominal infections after colorectal surgery
 25 January 2018 
Predictors of gastric cancer risk
 24 January 2018 
Risk factors underlying previously undiagnosed cirrhosis
 24 January 2018 
Ethnicity influences phenotype in IBD
 24 January 2018 
Bariatric surgery vs medical obesity treatment
 23 January 2018 
Atrophic gastritis after H. pylori eradication
 23 January 2018 
Ectopic pregnancy in women with IBD
 23 January 2018 
Celiac disease in IBS in the USA

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2018 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us