BACKGROUND/AIMS: In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, persistent symptoms on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy may be due to residual acid or non-acid reflux. Combined impedance-pH has been suggested to be superior to pH alone in the management of refractory patients to PPI. The utility of implementation of this technique in every day clinical practice is still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of patients studied with combined impedance-pH and to evaluate the yield of additional impedance monitoring over pH alone in patients with persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. METHODS: Seventy-one patients (31 men; mean age, 49.1 +/- 15.5 years) on PPI therapy underwent combined impedance-pH for persistent typical (76%) or atypical (49%) symptoms. RESULTS: During impedance-pH study, 44 (62%) patients reported symptoms. A positive symptom index (SI) was found in 21 (48%) patients: 8 (18.2%) had a positive SI for acid reflux, 9 (20.5%) for non-acid reflux and 4 (9.1%) for mixed reflux. Addition of impedance allowed association between reflux and symptoms in 20.5% of patients who would have been missed by pH study alone. Heartburn was the most prevalent symptom associated with acid reflux, whereas regurgitation and ear, nose and throat symptoms were associated with non-acid reflux. CONCLUSIONS: The use of combined impedance-pH monitoring substantially increased the diagnostic yield compared to pH alone. With SI analysis, 20.5% of patients received a diagnosis that could not have been achieved with pH testing alone.
Ear ; Electric Impedance ; Esophageal pH Monitoring ; Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Heartburn ; Humans ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Nose ; Pharynx ; Proton Pumps

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In patients with non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the commonest cause and ambulatory pH is of great value in identifying these patients. However, parameters in the context of predicting therapeutic response are still unknown. By extending the monitoring period, we could better evaluate the best evidence for GERD association. Our aims were (1) to compare the outcomes of 48-hour pH monitoring to 24-hour and (2) to determine whether objective parameters could predict the treatment success in patients with NCCP using Bravo pH system. METHODS: Pathological esophageal acid reflux (PEAR) and positive symptom index (SI) were calculated after 24-hour and compared to the 48-hour study. Evidence suggestive of GERD diagnosis was considered if PEAR and/or SI (+) were present on each different day. After pH study, all patients received proton pump inhibitor twice a day for 4 weeks. Treatment success was determined at the end of therapy. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with NCCP participated. GERD was identified in 20 (62.5%) patients; 17 (53.1%) had PEAR, 3 (9.4%) SI (+) and 7 (22%) both. Twelve (41%) patients exhibited PEAR values on day 1, while 17 after 2 days; a 12.1% gain. SI (+) was found in 6 patients (18.8%) on day 1 and in 4 more on day 2, a gain of 12.5%. Significantly higher proportion of patients with GERD indicators showed improvement compared to those without (90% vs 16.7%, P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NCCP, 48-hour pH measurement identified GERD as the cause of NCCP with an increased yield by almost 12% compared to 12 hours. Objective GERD parameters could predict response to antireflux therapy.
Chest Pain ; Esophageal pH Monitoring ; Gastroesophageal Reflux ; Humans ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Nitriles ; Proton Pump Inhibitors ; Proton Pumps ; Protons ; Pyrus ; Thorax