AIM： TO investigate the agreement between esophageal manometry and pH step-up method in two different patient positions. METHODS： Eighteen subjects were included in the study. First, the distance from the nose to th...AIM： TO investigate the agreement between esophageal manometry and pH step-up method in two different patient positions. METHODS： Eighteen subjects were included in the study. First, the distance from the nose to the proximal border of the lower esophageal sphincter （LES） was measured manometrically. Then a different investigator, who was blinded to the results of the first study, measured the same distance using the pH step-up method, with the patient in both upright and supine positions. An assessment of agreement between the two techniques was performed. RESULTS： In the supine position, the measurement of only one subject was outside the range accepted for correct positioning （~〈 3 cm distal or proximal to the LES）. In the upright position, errors in measurement were recognized in five subjects. Bland-Airman plots revealed good agreement between measurements obtained manometrically and by the pH-step up method with the patient in the supine position. CONCLUSION： In the case of nonavailability of manometric detection device, the pH step-up method can facilitate the positioning of the 24 h pH monitoring catheter with the patient in the supine position. Thisshould increase the use of pH-metry in clinical practice for subjects with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease if our results are supported by further studies.展开更多
AIM: To determine the gastroesophageal refl uxate in the cervical esophagus (CE) and measure transcutaneous cervical esophageal ultrasound (TCEUS) f indings [anterior wall thickness (WT) of CE, esophageal luminal diam...AIM: To determine the gastroesophageal refl uxate in the cervical esophagus (CE) and measure transcutaneous cervical esophageal ultrasound (TCEUS) f indings [anterior wall thickness (WT) of CE, esophageal luminal diameter (ELD), esophageal diameter (ED)]; to compare TCEUS findings in the patient subgroups divided according to 24-h esophageal pH monitoring and manometry; and to investigate possible cut-off values according to the TCEUS f indings as a predictor of gastroesophageal refl ux (GER). METHODS: In 45/500 patients, refl uxate was visualized in TCEUS. 38/45 patients underwent esophagogastroduo denoscopy (EGD), 24-h pH monitoring and manometry. RESULTS: The 38 patients were grouped according to 24-h pH monitoring as follows: Group A: GER-positive (n = 20) [Includes Group B: isolated proximal refl ux (PR) (n = 6), Group C: isolated distal reflux (DR) (n = 6), and Group D: both PR/DR (n = 8)]; Group E: no refl ux (n = 13); and Group F: hypersensitive esophagus (HSE) (n = 5). Groups B + D indicated total PR patients (n = 14), Groups E + F refl ux-negatives with HSE (n = 18), and Groups A + F refl ux-positives with HSE (n = 25). When the 38 patients were grouped according to manometry fi ndings, 24 had normal esophageal manometry; 7 had hypotensive and 2 had hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter (LES); and 5 had ineffective esophageal motility disorder (IEM). The ELD measurement was greater in group A + F than group E (P = 0.023, 5.0 ± 1.3 vs 3.9 ± 1.4 mm). In 27/38 patients, there was at least one pathologic acid refl ux and/or pathologic manometry fi nding. The cut-off value for ELD of 4.83 mm had 79% sensitivity and 61% specificity in predicting the PRbetween Groups B + D and E (AUC = 0.775, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Visualizing refluxate in TCEUS was useful as a pre-diagnostic tool for estimating GER or manometric pathology in 71.1% of adults in our study, but it was not diagnostic for CE WT.展开更多
文摘AIM： TO investigate the agreement between esophageal manometry and pH step-up method in two different patient positions. METHODS： Eighteen subjects were included in the study. First, the distance from the nose to the proximal border of the lower esophageal sphincter （LES） was measured manometrically. Then a different investigator, who was blinded to the results of the first study, measured the same distance using the pH step-up method, with the patient in both upright and supine positions. An assessment of agreement between the two techniques was performed. RESULTS： In the supine position, the measurement of only one subject was outside the range accepted for correct positioning （~〈 3 cm distal or proximal to the LES）. In the upright position, errors in measurement were recognized in five subjects. Bland-Airman plots revealed good agreement between measurements obtained manometrically and by the pH-step up method with the patient in the supine position. CONCLUSION： In the case of nonavailability of manometric detection device, the pH step-up method can facilitate the positioning of the 24 h pH monitoring catheter with the patient in the supine position. Thisshould increase the use of pH-metry in clinical practice for subjects with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease if our results are supported by further studies.
文摘AIM: To determine the gastroesophageal refl uxate in the cervical esophagus (CE) and measure transcutaneous cervical esophageal ultrasound (TCEUS) f indings [anterior wall thickness (WT) of CE, esophageal luminal diameter (ELD), esophageal diameter (ED)]; to compare TCEUS findings in the patient subgroups divided according to 24-h esophageal pH monitoring and manometry; and to investigate possible cut-off values according to the TCEUS f indings as a predictor of gastroesophageal refl ux (GER). METHODS: In 45/500 patients, refl uxate was visualized in TCEUS. 38/45 patients underwent esophagogastroduo denoscopy (EGD), 24-h pH monitoring and manometry. RESULTS: The 38 patients were grouped according to 24-h pH monitoring as follows: Group A: GER-positive (n = 20) [Includes Group B: isolated proximal refl ux (PR) (n = 6), Group C: isolated distal reflux (DR) (n = 6), and Group D: both PR/DR (n = 8)]; Group E: no refl ux (n = 13); and Group F: hypersensitive esophagus (HSE) (n = 5). Groups B + D indicated total PR patients (n = 14), Groups E + F refl ux-negatives with HSE (n = 18), and Groups A + F refl ux-positives with HSE (n = 25). When the 38 patients were grouped according to manometry fi ndings, 24 had normal esophageal manometry; 7 had hypotensive and 2 had hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter (LES); and 5 had ineffective esophageal motility disorder (IEM). The ELD measurement was greater in group A + F than group E (P = 0.023, 5.0 ± 1.3 vs 3.9 ± 1.4 mm). In 27/38 patients, there was at least one pathologic acid refl ux and/or pathologic manometry fi nding. The cut-off value for ELD of 4.83 mm had 79% sensitivity and 61% specificity in predicting the PRbetween Groups B + D and E (AUC = 0.775, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Visualizing refluxate in TCEUS was useful as a pre-diagnostic tool for estimating GER or manometric pathology in 71.1% of adults in our study, but it was not diagnostic for CE WT.
