COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of the multichannel intraluminal impedance pH and conventional pH for measuring esophageal acid exposure: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Surgical Endoscopy 2017 December
BACKGROUND: The modalities for evaluating acid reflux in medical care for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include conventional pH (C-pH), wireless pH (Bravo® ) and multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH), which have been reported to vary with respect to the duration of acid reflux. In this study, we examined the difference between the acid reflux in C-pH and MII-pH among patients with GERD.

METHODS: Prior to initial laparoscopic fundoplication carried out on 297 cases from December 1994 to April 2016, an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and C-pH or MII-pH were conducted. A propensity score-matched analysis was carried out about five factors including age, sex, BMI, the extent of reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles classification), and the presence of hiatal hernia (HH), ultimately leading to the creation of a C-pH group (81 cases) and MII-pH group (81 cases) as the subjects.

RESULTS: Concerning pH < 4 holding time (18.9 vs. 7.3%, p < 0.001), DeMeester score (58.5 vs. 24.4, p < 0.001), and the number of times reflux continued for longer than 5 min (8.8 vs. 4.1 times/day, p = 0.002), the C-pH group had significantly higher values for each, while the positive rate of acid reflux (Positive pH) was significantly higher in the C-pH group (p < 0.001), at 80% in the C-pH group and 42% in the MII-pH group. In terms of the correlation between the extent of reflux esophagitis and pH < 4 holding time, a moderate level of positive correlation was seen in both the C-pH group and MII-pH group (r of each = 0.427, r = 0.408); moreover, regardless of the presence of HH, the holding time was significantly higher in the C-pH group than the MII-pH group (p of each <0.001, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION: While the values of each parameter regarding acid reflux are calculated as lower in MII-pH than in C-pH, there is no difference in the evaluation of the pathology between the two modalities.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app