Cargando…

Discounting the duration of bolus exposure in impedance testing underestimates acid reflux

BACKGROUND: Combined impedance-pH testing (MII) allows for detection of reflux episodes regardless of pH. However impedance-based diagnosis of reflux may not routinely account for duration of the reflux episode. We hypothesize that impedance testing may be less sensitive than pH-testing in detecting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vikneswaran, Namasivayam, Murray, Joseph A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27278233
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-016-0471-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Combined impedance-pH testing (MII) allows for detection of reflux episodes regardless of pH. However impedance-based diagnosis of reflux may not routinely account for duration of the reflux episode. We hypothesize that impedance testing may be less sensitive than pH-testing in detecting acid reflux off therapy as a result of discounting duration of exposure. METHODS: Baseline characteristics and reflux parameters of MII studies performed off-anti-secretory medications were analyzed. Studies on acid suppressive medication and those with recording times less than 20 h or low baseline impedance were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 73 consecutive MII studies were analyzed of which 31 MII studies had elevated acid exposure while 16 were abnormal by impedance criteria. MII testing off-therapy was more likely to be abnormal by pH criteria (percent time pH < 4) than impedance criteria (total reflux):[42 vs 22 % (p =0.02)]. Acid exposure (percent time pH < 4) identified more studies as abnormal than MII-detected acid reflux episodes [42 vs 34 % (p < 0.01)]. Mean acid clearance time (pH-detected) was significantly longer than median bolus clearance time (impedance-detected) in the total [98.7 s vs 12.6 s (p < 0.01)], upright [58.6 s vs 13.1 s (p < 0.01)], and recumbent positions [136.7 s vs 14.2 s (p < 0.01)] with the greatest difference seen in the recumbent position. The mean ratio of mean acid clearance time (pH-detected) and the median bolus clearance time (impedance-detected) was significantly higher in the recumbent position compared to the upright position [11. vs 5.3 (p = 0.01)]. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory impedance testing underestimates acid reflux compared to esophageal acid exposure by discounting the prolonged period of mucosal contact with each acid reflux episode, particularly in the recumbent position.