[The Additional Role of Symptom-Reflux Association Analysis of Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Using Bravo Capsule pH Test].

Background/Aims Since the development of ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring test to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), several parameters have been introduced. The aim of this study was to assess whether using the symptom index (SI), symptom sensitivity index (SSI), and symptom association probability (SAP), in addition to the DeMeester score (DS), would be useful for interpreting the Bravo pH monitoring test. Methods A retrospective study, which included 68 patients with reflux symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy who underwent a Bravo capsule pH test between October 2006 and May 2015, was carried out. Acid reflux parameters and symptom reflux association parameters were analyzed. Results The median percent time of total pH<4 and DS were 2.90% (interquartile range [IQR] 1.13-6.03%) and 11.10 (IQR 4.90-22.80), respectively. According to the analysis of the day-to-day variation in percent time of total pH<4 (r=0.724) and DS (r=0.537), there was a significant correlation between Day 1 and Day 2. The positive rate of Bravo test according to DS was 27 (39.7%). Although thirty patients experienced symptoms during the test, there were no significant differences of reflux parameters compared with other patients. In the symptom group, 7 patients (23.3%) were identified as having negative DS and an abnormal symptom-related index. There were no significant test-related complications. Conclusions In addition to the analysis of traditional acid parameters of the Bravo capsule pH test, diagnosis of GERD, including reflux hypersensitivity, can be improved by performing an analysis of the symptom-reflux association and of the day-to-day variation.

[1]  J. Pandolfino,et al.  Functional Esophageal Disorders. , 2016, Gastroenterology.

[2]  Yeong Yeh Lee,et al.  Evaluation of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Using the Bravo Capsule pH System , 2015, Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility.

[3]  T. Ang,et al.  Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: establishing values in a multiracial cohort of asymptomatic Asian subjects. , 2013, Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver.

[4]  Yanhong Deng,et al.  24 Versus 48-hour Bravo pH Monitoring , 2012, Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

[5]  S. Roman,et al.  Wireless pH capsule – yield in clinical practice , 2012, Endoscopy.

[6]  M. Fox,et al.  Prolonged, wireless pH‐studies have a high diagnostic yield in patients with reflux symptoms and negative 24‐h catheter‐based pH‐studies , 2011, Neurogastroenterology and motility : the official journal of the European Gastrointestinal Motility Society.

[7]  A. de Hoyos,et al.  Technical problems produced by the Bravo pH test in nonerosive reflux disease patients. , 2010, World journal of gastroenterology.

[8]  J. Pandolfino,et al.  The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. , 2010, The American journal of medicine.

[9]  T. Ang,et al.  To Bravo or not? A comparison of wireless esophageal pH monitoring and conventional pH catheter to evaluate non‐erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease in a multiracial Asian cohort , 2010, Journal of digestive diseases.

[10]  R. Penagini,et al.  Wireless pH monitoring: better tolerability and lower impact on daily habits. , 2007, Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver.

[11]  J. Richter,et al.  ACG Practice Guidelines: Esophageal Reflux Testing , 2007, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[12]  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.

[13]  D. Castell,et al.  Comparison Between the Combined Analysis and the DeMeester Score to Predict Response to PPI Therapy , 2006, Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

[14]  A. Bredenoord,et al.  Symptom association analysis in ambulatory gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring , 2005, Gut.

[15]  W. Wong,et al.  Is proton pump inhibitor testing an effective approach to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with noncardiac chest pain?: a meta-analysis. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  J. Wilson,et al.  Functional esophageal disorders , 1999, Gut.

[17]  V. Eckardt,et al.  The impact of open access 24-h pH-metry on the diagnosis and management of esophageal reflux disease , 1999, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[18]  J. Richter,et al.  Reproducibility of proximal probe pH parameters in 24-hour ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring. , 1997, The American journal of gastroenterology.

[19]  T R DeMeester,et al.  Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. , 1992, The American journal of gastroenterology.

[20]  최명규,et al.  The Performance and Safety of Bravo Esophageal pH Monitoring in Korean Patients , 2007 .

[21]  W. Wong,et al.  Is Proton Pump Inhibitor Testing an Effective Approach to Diagnose Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Patients With Noncardiac Chest Pain , 2005 .

[22]  M. Pfister,et al.  Five-year audit of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH-manometry in clinical practice. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.