HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: gut.2005.066274v1 54/12/1682    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by des Varannes, S B. Articles by Galmiche, J P Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by des Varannes, S B. Articles by Galmiche, J P Topic Collections Relevant Articles

Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo)

¹ Institut des Maladies de l’Appareil Digestif, CHU- Hôtel Dieu, Nantes, France
² Fédérations des Spécialités Digestives, Hospices Civils, Lyon, France
³ Policlinique Hôpital Charles Nicolle, Rouen, France
⁴ Service des Maladies de l’Appareil Digestif, Bordeaux, France
⁵ Physiologie Digestive et Urinaire, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, Rouen, France

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr S Bruley des Varannes
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, 44093 Nantes cedex, France; bruley{at}easynet.fr

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 determine the concordance of data between the conventional pH measurement system (CPHMS) and the CFS Bravo.

Methods: Forty patients with symptoms suggestive of GORD underwent 24 hour oesophageal pH monitoring using the CPHMS with a nasopharyngeal electrode and the Bravo CFS simultaneously. The sensitive tips of both electrodes were positioned at the same level under fluoroscopy. In addition to automatic analysis, each reflux episode was checked visually and characterised.

Results: There was a significant correlation (r = 0.87, p<0.0001) between the 24 hour oesophageal acid exposures recorded by the CPHMS and the CFS. Twenty four hour oesophageal acid exposure was significantly lower with the CFS than with the CPHMS (2.4 (0.4–8.7) v 3.6 (0.7–8.6); p< 0.0001). Consequently, with the CFS, the cut off level for the diagnosis of GORD, as calculated from the regression equation, was 2.9% (for the 4.2% cut off determined in controls with the CPHMS). After this adjustment, concordance of the diagnosis of GORD was 88% (kappa 0.760). Diagnosis of GORD was established in more patients with the CFS 48 hour results than with the 24 hour results.

Conclusions: Despite strong correlations between oesophageal acid exposure recorded with the two devices, the Bravo CFS significantly under recorded acid exposure compared with the CPHMS. Provided some correcting factors are used, the Bravo CFS can improve the sensitivity of pHmetry for the diagnosis of GORD by allowing more prolonged recordings.

Abbreviations: GORD, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; CFS, catheter free system; CPHMS, conventional pH measurement system; SAP, symptom analysis probability

Keywords: gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; pH monitoring; diagnosis; ambulatory recordings

Relevant Articles

Bravo wireless versus catheter pH monitoring systems

M Fox
Gut 2006 55: 434-435. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]