World journal of gastroenterology · 2007
Bravo (wireless) ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring: how do day 1 and day 2 results compare?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bechtold Matthew L, Holly Jason-Scott L, Thaler Klaus, Marshall John B
Аннотация
AIM: To investigate if differences exist for patients' gastroesophageal reflux as measured by the Bravo ambulatory esophageal pH system between d 1 and d 2.
METHODS: A retrospective study of 27 consecutive adult patients who underwent Bravo esophageal pH monitoring was performed. Patients underwent EGD under IV conscious sedation prior to Bravo placement. Acid reflux variables and symptom scores for d 1 were compared to d 2.
RESULTS: The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were 90.4 microg and 7.2 mg, respectively. D 1 results were significantly more elevated than d 2 with respect to total time pH < 4, upright position reflux, and mean number of long refluxes. No statistical difference was noted between the two days for supine position reflux, number of refluxes, duration of longest reflux, episodes of heartburn, and symptom score.
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing Bravo esophageal pH monitoring in association with EGD and moderate conscious sedation experience significantly more acid reflux on d 1 compared to d 2. The IV sedation may be responsible for the increased reflux on d 1. Performed this way, 48-h Bravo results may not be entirely representative of the patients' true GE reflux profile.
METHODS: A retrospective study of 27 consecutive adult patients who underwent Bravo esophageal pH monitoring was performed. Patients underwent EGD under IV conscious sedation prior to Bravo placement. Acid reflux variables and symptom scores for d 1 were compared to d 2.
RESULTS: The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were 90.4 microg and 7.2 mg, respectively. D 1 results were significantly more elevated than d 2 with respect to total time pH < 4, upright position reflux, and mean number of long refluxes. No statistical difference was noted between the two days for supine position reflux, number of refluxes, duration of longest reflux, episodes of heartburn, and symptom score.
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing Bravo esophageal pH monitoring in association with EGD and moderate conscious sedation experience significantly more acid reflux on d 1 compared to d 2. The IV sedation may be responsible for the increased reflux on d 1. Performed this way, 48-h Bravo results may not be entirely representative of the patients' true GE reflux profile.