Bravo (wireless) ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring: how do day 1 and day 2 results compare?

AIM To investigate if differences exist for patients' gastroesophageal reflux as measured by the Bravo ambulatory esophageal pH system between d 1 and d 2. METHODS A retrospective study of 27 consecutive adult patients who underwent Bravo esophageal pH monitoring was performed. Patients underwent EGD under IV conscious sedation prior to Bravo placement. Acid reflux variables and symptom scores for d 1 were compared to d 2. RESULTS The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were 90.4 microg and 7.2 mg, respectively. D 1 results were significantly more elevated than d 2 with respect to total time pH < 4, upright position reflux, and mean number of long refluxes. No statistical difference was noted between the two days for supine position reflux, number of refluxes, duration of longest reflux, episodes of heartburn, and symptom score. CONCLUSION Patients undergoing Bravo esophageal pH monitoring in association with EGD and moderate conscious sedation experience significantly more acid reflux on d 1 compared to d 2. The IV sedation may be responsible for the increased reflux on d 1. Performed this way, 48-h Bravo results may not be entirely representative of the patients' true GE reflux profile.

[1]  J. Johansson,et al.  Wireless Esophageal pH Monitoring Is Better Tolerated than the Catheter-Based Technique: Results from a Randomized Cross-Over Trial , 2007, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[2]  N. B. White,et al.  Forty-eight-hour ph monitoring increases sensitivity in detecting abnormal esophageal acid exposure , 2005, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[3]  I. Hirano,et al.  Ambulatory pH Monitoring: New Advances and Indications. , 2006, Gastroenterology & hepatology.

[4]  Y. Bhat,et al.  Wireless Esophageal pH Monitoring: New Technique Means New Questions , 2006, Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

[5]  S. Benjamin,et al.  Day-to-Day Variability in Acid Reflux Patterns Using the BRAVO pH Monitoring System , 2006, Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

[6]  R. Holloway,et al.  Capsule pH monitoring: is wireless more? , 2005, Gut.

[7]  Ikuo Hirano,et al.  Four-day Bravo pH capsule monitoring with and without proton pump inhibitor therapy. , 2005, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[8]  B. Petersen,et al.  ASGE Technology Status Evaluation Report: wireless esophageal pH monitoring system. , 2005, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[9]  T. Ponchon,et al.  Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo) , 2005, Gut.

[10]  R. Clouse,et al.  Value of extended recording time with wireless pH monitoring in evaluating gastroesophageal reflux disease. , 2005, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[11]  R. Fass,et al.  Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per‐oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24‐h oesophageal pH monitoring – a randomized trial , 2005, Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics.

[12]  J. Remes-Troche,et al.  Performance, Tolerability, and Symptoms Related to Prolonged pH Monitoring Using the Bravo System in Mexico , 2004, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[13]  J. Pandolfino Bravo Capsule pH Monitoring , 2005, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[14]  Richard E. Sampliner,et al.  Effect of Ambulatory 24-Hour Esophageal pH Monitoring on Reflux-Provoking Activities , 1999, Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

[15]  J. Pandolfino,et al.  Ambulatory Esophageal pH Monitoring Using a Wireless System , 2003, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[16]  E. Quigley,et al.  Clinical esophageal pH recording: a technical review for practice guideline development. , 1996, Gastroenterology.