Skip to main content
Log in

pH Impedance vs. traditional pH monitoring in clinical practice: an outcome study

  • Original Article—Alimentary Tract
  • Published:
Journal of Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The addition of impedance to 24-h pH monitoring has allowed detection of weakly acidic reflux, but the extent to which pH-impedance (pH-MII) monitoring improves outcomes is unknown.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study. Patients referred for pH or pH-MII monitoring completed a standardized questionnaire on improvement in the dominant symptom, their satisfaction, and treatment at 3 and 12 months after the test during a telephone interview.

Results

A total of 184 patients (mean age, 52 years, range, 19–82 years; 35 % with typical symptoms; and 89 % tested off therapy) completed pH (n = 92) or pH-MII monitoring (n = 92) over a period of 15 months. The two arms were similar in terms of demographic, clinical, and endoscopic variables. Ten patients in the pH-MII arm showed evidence of weakly acidic reflux disease. There was no difference in the percentage of patients in the pH and pH-MII monitoring arms who experienced improvement in their dominant symptom after 3 (58 vs. 63 %; p = 0.621) or 12 months (66 vs. 70 %; p = 0.234), and the same was true for patient satisfaction. There were also no between-group difference in the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) after 3 (63 vs. 68.5 %; p = 0.437) or 12 months (47 vs. 60.5 %; p = 0.051). PPIs were prescribed more frequently after a positive test (p < 0.001) although they were used by 45.6 % of the negative patients. Only one patient underwent fundoplication.

Conclusions

Two-thirds of patients undergoing pH-MII monitoring experience a positive outcome, similarly to what occurs after traditional pH monitoring. Physicians often pay little attention to the test results, especially if they are negative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA, et al. Epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut. 2005;54:710–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Valle C, Broglia F, Pistorio A, et al. Prevalence and impact of symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis Sci. 1999;44:1848–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement. Guidelines on the use of esophageal pH recording. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sifrim D, Castell D, Dent J, et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas reflux. Gut. 2004;53:1024–31.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Savarino E, Marabotto E, Zentilin P, et al. The added value of impedance-pH monitoring to Rome III criteria in distinguishing functional heartburn from non-erosive reflux disease. Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43:542–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Malhotra A, Freston JW, Aziz K. Use of pH-impedance testing to evaluate patients with suspected extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:271–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sifrim D, Dupont L, Blondeau K, et al. Weakly acidic reflux in patients with chronic unexplained cough during 24 hour pressure, pH, and impedance monitoring. Gut. 2005;54:449–54.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mainie I, Tutuian R, Shay S, et al. Acid and non-acid reflux in patients with persistent symptoms despite acid suppressive therapy: a multicentre study using combined ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring. Gut. 2006;55:1398–402.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zerbib F, Roman S, Ropert A, et al. Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring and symptom analysis in GERD: a study in patients off and on therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1956–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Becker V, Bajbouj M, Waller K, et al. Clinical trial: persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms despite standard therapy with proton pump inhibitors-a follow-up study of intraluminal-impedance guided therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:1355–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tenca A, Campagnola P, Bravi I, et al. Impedance pH monitoring: intra-observer and inter-observer agreement and usefulness of a rapid analysis of symptom reflux association. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;20:205–11.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grigolon A, Consonni D, Bravi I, et al. Diagnostic yield of 96-h wireless pH monitoring and usefulness in patients’ management. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:522–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zerbib F, des Varannes SB, Roman S, et al. Normal values and day-to-day variability of 24-h ambulatory oesophageal impedance-pH monitoring in a Belgian-French cohort of healthy subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:1011–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weusten BL, Roelofs JM, Akkermans LM, et al. The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data. Gastroenterology. 1994;107:1741–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clayton D, Hills M. Statistical models in epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Boeckxstaens G, El-Serag HB, Smout AJ, et al. Symptomatic reflux disease: the present, the past and the future. Gut. 2014;63:1185–93.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weijenborg PW, de Schepper HS, Smout AJ, et al. Effects of antidepressants in patients with functional esophageal disorders or gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014.

  18. Mainie I, Tutuian R, Agrawal A, et al. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring to select patients with persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1483–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tutuian R, Mainie I, Agrawal A, et al. Nonacid reflux in patients with chronic cough on acid-suppressive therapy. Chest. 2006;130:386–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Del Genio G, Tolone S, del Genio F, et al. Prospective assessment of patient selection for antireflux surgery by combined multichannel intraluminal impedance pH monitoring. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1491–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wileman SM, McCann S, Grant AM, et al. Medical versus surgical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:Cd003243.

  22. Jaspersen D, Labenz J, Willich SN, et al. Long-term clinical course of extra-oesophageal manifestations in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A prospective follow-up analysis based on the ProGERD study. Dig Liver Dis. 2006;38:233–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Patel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Acid-based parameters on pH-impedance testing predict symptom improvement with medical management better than impedance parameters. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:836–44.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wiener GJ, Morgan TM, Copper JB, et al. Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. Reproducibility and variability of pH parameters. Dig Dis Sci. 1988;33:1127–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. De Bortoli N, Martinucci I, Savarino E, et al. Proton pump inhibitor responders who are not confirmed as GERD patients with impedance and pH monitoring: who are they? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26:28–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vaezi MF, Richter JE, Stasney CR, et al. Treatment of chronic posterior laryngitis with esomeprazole. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:254–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Delia Pugliese.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pugliese, D., Mauro, A., Consonni, D. et al. pH Impedance vs. traditional pH monitoring in clinical practice: an outcome study. J Gastroenterol 51, 130–137 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-015-1090-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-015-1090-z

Keywords

Navigation