Document Detail

Critical analysis of esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance monitoring 20 years later.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23150831     Owner:  NLM     Status:  PubMed-not-MEDLINE    
Multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) for the evaluation of esophageal diseases was created in 1991 trying to solve previous limitations of esophageal function test. MII-pH is able to determine the physical characteristics of the refluxate (liquid, gas, or mixed) and nonacidic GER. MII-manometry can determine the presence of bolus and its relation with peristalsis. This paper makes a critical analysis of the clinical applications of MII 20 years after its creation. Literature review shows that MII made great contributions for the understanding of esophageal physiology; however, direct clinical applications are few. MII-pH was expected to identify patients with normal acid reflux and abnormal nonacidic reflux. These patients are rarely found off therapy, that is, nonacidic reflux parallels acid reflux. Furthermore, the significance of isolated nonacidic reflux is unclear. Contradictory MII-manometry and conventional manometry findings lack better understanding and clinical implication as well as the real significance of bolus transit.
Fernando A M Herbella
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2012-10-24
Journal Detail:
Title:  ISRN gastroenterology     Volume:  2012     ISSN:  2090-4401     ISO Abbreviation:  ISRN Gastroenterol     Publication Date:  2012  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-11-15     Completed Date:  2012-11-19     Revised Date:  2013-04-03    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101563306     Medline TA:  ISRN Gastroenterol     Country:  Egypt    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  903240     Citation Subset:  -    
Department of Surgery, São Paulo Medical School, Federal University of São Paulo, 04021-001 São Paulo, SP, Brazil ; Surgical Gastroenterology, Division of Esophagus and Stomach, Hospital São Paulo, Rua Diogo de Faria 1087 cj 301, 04037-003 São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): ISRN Gastroenterol
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): ISRN Gastroenterol
Journal ID (publisher-id): ISRN.GASTROENTEROLOGY
ISSN: 2090-4398
ISSN: 2090-4401
Publisher: International Scholarly Research Network
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright © 2012 Fernando A. M. Herbella.
Received Day: 29 Month: 7 Year: 2012
Accepted Day: 13 Month: 9 Year: 2012
collection publication date: Year: 2012
Electronic publication date: Day: 24 Month: 10 Year: 2012
Volume: 2012E-location ID: 903240
PubMed Id: 23150831
ID: 3488400
DOI: 10.5402/2012/903240

Critical Analysis of Esophageal Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance Monitoring 20 Years Later
Fernando A. M. Herbella12*
1Department of Surgery, São Paulo Medical School, Federal University of São Paulo, 04021-001 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
2Surgical Gastroenterology, Division of Esophagus and Stomach, Hospital São Paulo, Rua Diogo de Faria 1087 cj 301, 04037-003 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Correspondence: *Fernando A. M. Herbella:
[other] Academic Editors: G. H. Kang, A. Nakajima, and C.-T. Shun

1. Introduction

Esophageal manometry and pH monitoring are ambulatory techniques for detection of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and esophageal motility disorders that were introduced into clinical practice in the 1970s; however, significant improvement was achieved over the last decades [1], including the development of multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) in 1991 [2]. These new achievements try to solve previous limitations of esophageal function test, such as the lack of ability to detect bolus transit and nonacid reflux.

A great enthusiasm came when MII was applied to esophageal physiology. First of all, the expectation that patients with suspected GER and a negative pH monitoring would have the disease objectively diagnosed came into mind. Second, the detection of bolus transport through the esophagus brought hope to the treatment of patients with dysphagia and normal manometry. This initial enthusiasm; however, subsided along time. This paper will focus on the critical analysis of the clinical applications of MII, 20 years after its creation.

2. MII Technique

Impedance is the measurement in Ohms of the electrical resistance between 2 points. In simple words, 2 consecutive sensors are in contact with the esophageal mucosa that has specific impedance value, but when the lumen is filled with any substance and this substance bridges these 2 sensors, the equipment will detect this variance. Because of their differential conductivity, gas, liquid, or a mixture of the two can be distinguished independent of the pH of the material. The order in which the sensor detects the material also allows determining the direction of its flow. The passage of liquid substances between the sensors decreases the impedance value. It is detected as a drop in the impedance of more than 50% from the baseline. In contrast, gas has high electrical resistance, leading to an increase in impedance of more than 50% the baseline, or an absolute value >7,000 ohms and mix of gas and liquid will be a combination of both. Return to 50% of the baseline is considered the end of the episode. During deglutition, lumen substances are detected first in the most proximal sensors and then progresses distally. A reflux episode is considered when lumen substances are detected first in distal sensors and then propagates aborally in at least two proximal sensors. Simultaneous detection of an episode of reflux by the pH sensor and by the impedance sensors denotes an acid reflux. Detection of an episode of reflux only by the impedance sensors denotes a non-acid reflux [3, 4].

MII-pH is a catheter-based technology. It consists of a catheter comparable to the conventional pH-monitoring where antimony sensors are similarly used to detect pH, but impedance sensors are also displaced in the catheter. The arrangement of the sensors is variable according to the manufacturer; however, the most common placement is shown in Figure 1.

Baseline measurement of impedance levels may denote mucosal integrity [4, 5] although its clinical significance is still elusive.

3. Assessment of Gastroesophageal Reflux

Conventional catheter-based prolonged ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring has been used since the 1970s. Its usefulness in clinical practice and research has been proven and reassured along time [6].

The first attempt to detect GER was accomplished in 1884 by Reichman, who lowered a sponge into the esophagus of a patient with heartburn and showed that it contained acid when retrieved. Over 50 years later, Aylwin in 1953 found acid and pepsin in the esophageal juice—retrieved with the aid of a tube—of patients with esophagitis [1]. The first in situ measurement of acid reflux in the esophagus is credited to Tuttle and Grossman in 1958 who used equipment previously described to study gastric pH and combined it with esophageal manometry. They studied different probe positions and pH levels and ultimately concluded that acid drop below 3 at 2 cm proximal to the respiratory inversion point was indicative of acid reflux [7]. Many other studies on the subject followed. Initially, recording machines were not portable, forcing patients to be wired to large equipments, making the procedure an in-patient system [1]. Radiofrequency transmission of pH data is not a modern technology; in fact its development started in the 1950s, and it was almost parallel to the “conventional” catheter technique. However, state-of-the-art technology for catheter-free wireless pH sensors and a new technology to attach the capsule were introduced in 2001 [8].

Detection of intraluminal esophageal impedance was developed in the early 1990s [2]. The combination of simultaneous detection of esophageal acidity (pH) and impedance-MII was also a landmark in understanding and evaluating GER.

Gastric and duodenal contents both can reflux into the esophagus and adjacent organs. Gastric hydrochloric acid has long been recognized as harmful to the esophagus [9]. Currently, it is recognized that bile reflux is also noxious to the esophagus [10].

Detection of non-acidic has been tried for decades. Researchers were motivated by patients with clinical and endoscopic evidence of GER but normal pH monitoring [11, 12], when non-acid reflux was suspected as the etiology of symptoms and mucosal damage in these patients [13, 14] since bile-induced esophagtis en experimental models [15, 16]. Different methods have been developed to detect non-acidic reflux, such as: esophageal intubation and aspiration [1719], detection of bile in the sputum [20, 21], alkaline pH shift at the pH monitoring [22, 23], and scintigraphy [24]. All described methods did not prove useful due to technical limitations, low sensitivity, nonphysiologic situations, and nonprolonged measurements. Probably the most promising technology was bilirubin monitoring through spectrophotometry (Bilitec 2000). It consists of a portable sensor coupled to a pH sensor in the tip of a catheter. It allows ambulatory measuring similar do conventional pH monitoring [25].

MII-pH goes further than the previous technologies and it is also able to determine the physical characteristics of the refluxate (liquid, gas, or mixed) and non-acidic GER [26, 27].

New concepts became evident only after the advent of MII-pH. For instance, rereflux (or superimposed reflux) is characterized by reflux episodes detected at impedance in a background pH < 4 after the initialization of a primary reflux event [28]. It seems to be associated to patients with severe esophagitis, postprandially, and in the recumbent posture [29]; however, its clinical relevance must be clarified.

Also, the correlation between symptoms and the pH of the refluxate have been studied. It was demonstrated that MII-pH improves the sensibility to correlate symptoms with episodes of reflux, since a significant number of symptoms may occur during non-acid episodes [30]. Various studies showed that heartburn is more commonly experienced in acid reflux [3133], while regurgitation [31, 32] and cough [33, 34] are symptoms most associated to non-acid reflux.

Different publications studied the effect of antisecretory drugs on the composition of GER. Their results, either studying volunteers [35] or patients [32], showed that the number and duration of reflux episodes were not changed by proton pump inhibitors, only the pH of the refluxate.

MMI-pH, different from conventional pH monitoring, can discriminate the physical characteristics of the refluxate (liquid, gas, or mixed). The clinical importance of this characteristic is still elusive. Tutuian et al. [36] have shown that reflux episodes that were associated with symptoms in patients who failed clinical therapy were primarily composed of both gas and liquid. Emerenziani et al. [37] showed that in heartburn patients the risk of reflux perception was significantly higher when gas was present in the refluxate. On the other side, mixed reflux (gas + liquids) comprises half of the episodes of reflux in volunteers [37, 38] and patients with erosive GER, nonerosive GER, and healthy individuals have the same amount of gas containing episodes of reflux [38, 39]. Both surgical [40] and clinical [37] therapy decreases the number of gas-containing reflux episodes; however, it is unclear if symptomatic relieve is linked to this finding since other forms of refluxate are also controlled by these therapies.

4. Critical Analysis of MII-pH

Previous methods to detect non-acid reflux (Bilitec, esophageal aspiration, scintigraphy, etc.) were contributory; however, technical limitations precluded widespread use of the technology. Even though, they made great contributions for the understanding of gastroesophageal reflux disease and esophageal physiology. MII-pH is probably the most effective method to detect non-acid reflux.

The aforementioned characteristics of the MMI-pH technology also brought great contribution for the understanding of gastroesophageal reflux disease and esophageal physiology. Clinical implications are; however, limited by: (1) studies with controversial results, (2) the rarity of isolated alkaline reflux, and (3) the lack of clinical implication on prognosis, therapeutic decision or postoperative evaluation.

The prevalence of weak-acidic GER (esophageal pH 4–7 + reflux detected at he MII) is variable in different series. Weakly acidic reflux ranges from 20 to 66% of the episodes of GER in healthy individuals [26, 41, 42]. In GER patients, weakly acidic GER shows no higher percentage—30–70% [4345]. The reasons for the difference in prevalence of weakly acidic reflux between studies are unclear and require further investigation. Ambulatory impedance pH studies suggest that patients with moderate and severe esophagitis have rates of weakly acidic reflux similar to or slightly greater than healthy controls. Furthermore, distal esophageal exposure to weakly acidic refluxate is similar in esophagitis and nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) patients [46]. Also, the composition of the refluxate must be better clarified. Weakly acidic reflux is more likely to occur early after a meal, both in controls and in patients with reflux disease [47]. Studies using pH-Bilitec recordings have shown that most bile reflux events occur in an acid setting, with esophageal pH below 4 [48]. It is possible that differences in mixing and distribution of postprandial gastric contents might explain the occurrence of either weakly acidic reflux with little or no biliopancreatic secretion [47]. If patients with abnormal weakly acidic reflux and physiologic acid reflux can be classified as refluxers is a question to be answered. Alkaline reflux (pH > 7) is a rare event [26, 41, 42].

MII-pH has not showed to be useful to predict treatment response. Bredenoord et al. [40] showed that MII parameters for non-acid reflux (symptom association or number of episodes of reflux) are not predictive for response to proton-pump inhibitors in GER patients. Similarly, MII parameters do not predict outcomes after antireflux surgery (fundoplication) [49, 50]. On therapy MII-pH is a common method for the detection of the persistence of GER in patients refractory to pharmacologic therapeutic [51]. Although we honestly believe that for patients with proven GER off therapy, this evaluation is unnecessary.

MII-pH has not shown to be useful in the postoperative period of antireflux operation (fundoplication). Arnold et al. [52] showed that in asymptomatic patients with a negative pH monitoring, the rate of false positive MII-pH of 50% renders the test clinically irrelevant. This may explain findings such as a lack of decrease in nonacid reflux episodes after endoscopic fundoplication as it is not selective to the type of refluxate [53].

Further considerations are necessary. Catheter-based esophageal function tests are nonphysiologic methods. One of the reasons appointed to a false-negative pH monitoring is alteration in normal life style, food intake, and hypersalivation due to the presence of the transnasal catheter. Wireless catheter-free implantable capsule-based pH-monitoring was created to prevent the discomfort associated to the presence of the esophagonasal catheter [54, 55]. Unfortunately, untoward effects and limitations are frequent, most of them related to the fixation method that pins the capsule to the esophageal mucosa. Thus, problems reported are: (1) the capsule fails to deploy and attach to the esophageal mucosa in a significant percentage of patients (ranging from 0.5 to 20% [5660]); (2) the presence of the capsule in the esophagus may cause symptoms. The majority of patients experience foreign body sensation, especially with swallow and dysphagia [56, 60, 61]. Chest pain occurs in 33–50% of patients previously free of this symptom [58, 59]. The pain may be severe in 1 to 9% of the patients and removal of the capsule may be occasionally necessary in 2 to 5% of the patients, from 1 hour up to 5 days after the procedure [61]. Nausea was also reported in 6% of the studies [58]; (3) in a significant number of studies (2 to 12% [56, 57, 60]) data cannot be completely retrieved. Reasons for incomplete data retrieval are unexplainable failure of the device (either the capsule or the receiver), interference due to other wireless devices, permanence of the receiver to far from the patient, and detachment of the capsule. The capsule is designed to detach in 3–7 days and be expelled in the stool. Premature detachment of the capsule can occur in 2 to 5.5% of the cases [56, 57, 59, 60]; (4) in the opposite direction, nondetachment of the capsule after 15 days requiring endoscopic removal was reported [61]; (5) the number of reflux episodes are consistently lower when Bravo capsule is compared to conventional pH monitoring [59]. This is credited to the lower sampling rate (every 6.25 seconds, compared to 4 per second) of the Bravo system [62], fixed position of the wireless capsule that prevents it to dip inside the stomach during swallows [63], and inaccuracy in calibration of the capsule [64]; and (6) a precise positioning based on the LES can be accomplished using Bravo system if manometry is done previously and transnasal route is used to place the capsule. However, the squamous-columnar transition, a variable anatomical position, is utilized as landmark if the transoral route is used. Currently, there is no system able to measure nonacid reflux through a wireless capsule. Other point is a prolonged (more than 1 day) measurement of GER. Different studies showed that increasing the period of analysis increases the sensitivity for GER detection [55, 65, 66].

5. Assessment of Esophageal Motility

The same technology for MII-pH has been used in combination with esophageal manometry. MII-manometry can determine the presence of bolus and its relation with peristalsis. Analysis of MII-manometry is very similar to the analysis of MII-pH. Transit of the bolus induces the same pattern of impedance measurement.

Similarly to MII-pH, impedance sensors are also displaced along a conventional manometry catheter. Both water perfused [32] and solid state [28] catheters can be used, although the former is more common. The arrangement of the sensors is variable according to the manufacturer; however, the most common format is shown in Figure 2.

Analysis of MII-EM tracings is very similar to the analysis of MII-pH. Transit of the bolus induces the same pattern of impedance measurement. Usually, 10 viscous swallows, not only 10 liquid swallows, are usually added to the analysis [67] allowing higher detection of esophageal function defects compared to liquid swallows [68]. Obviously, the addition of viscous swallows can be integrated to the conventional manometry as well [69]. More recently, solid swallows have also been added to MII [70]. Multiple parameters can be recorded; nevertheless bolus clearance and transit time are simple but informative parameters (Figure 3). This technology allows (1) monitoring of bolus transport patterns, (2) calculation of bolus transit parameters, (3) evaluation of bolus clearance, (4) monitoring of swallow associated events such as air movement and reflux, and (5) investigation of the relationships between bolus transit and LES relaxation [71].

Tutuian and Castell [72] studying 350 patients with a wide range of esophageal diseases reported that complete bolus transit detected with the impedance was identified in 96% of manometric normal swallows, 33% of ineffective, and 53% of simultaneous waves considering liquids swallows. Furthermore, distal esophageal amplitude was higher in patients with complete bolus clearance, as expected.

Different motility disorders have been studied by MII-manometry. Published studies showed that patients with achalasia and scleroderma have always abnormal bolus transit [7274]. Almost half of patients with ineffective esophageal motility and diffuse esophageal spasm have normal bolus transit, while almost all patients with normal esophageal manometry, nutcracker esophagus, poor relaxing LES, hypertensive LES, and hypotensive LES have normal bolus transit [72, 74]. The analysis of these results according to subgroups of diseases, not only reinforces some previous concepts but also changes some of them. Esophageal motility abnormalities can be classified as transit defect or pressure defect [75]. Some conclusions are: (a) achalasia and scleroderma are associated to manometric abnormalities and abnormal bolus transit, as expect; (b) isolated sphincter abnormalities do not affect bolus transit; (c) ineffective esophageal motility may have a normal bolus clearance; (d) diffuse esophageal spasm may have a normal bolus clearance; (f) nutcracker esophagus is a disease of abnormal pressures, not abnormal bolus transit; and (g) abnormal bolus clearance can be seen in a small number of patients with normal manometry.

MII role in the workup for belching disorders and rumination seems promising [76].

6. Critical Analysis of MII-Manometry

Similarly to MII-pH, MII-manometry made great contributions for the understanding of esophageal physiology; however, direct clinical application is jeopardized by 3 points: (1) different MII findings are found in the same series of patients; (2) abnormal MII findings did not prove a real value in changing current treatment options; (3) MII-manometry does not predict treatment outcomes; and (4) the significance of discrepant MII and manometry results is elusive.

A percentage of altered and normal MII has been reported in healthy volunteers [55], patients with dysphagia and without dysphagia [77, 78], and patients in the postoperative of Nissen fundoplication with and without dysphagia [79]. Bogte et al. [80] affirmed that stasis of both liquid and solid boluses occurs frequently in patients and in controls and can be regarded as physiological!

Classically, esophageal motility disorders have been classified, named, and treated based on manometric characteristics [81]. The recent advent of high-resolution manometry allowed the development of a different classification [82] but again with direct clinical implications for treatment [83, 84]. Moreover, MII have been recently coupled with high-resolution manometry [8589], interestingly; however, MII proved to validate high-resolution manometry ability to detect bolus transport and not the opposite [89, 90]. No MII-specific patterns were identified in order to create dysmotility classifications. Also, the lack of correlation between symptom (dysphagia) and abnormal bolus transit increases the confusion to understand MII-manometry findings [91, 92]. Furthermore, low baseline impedance levels, air entrapment and erratic liquids movement in the esophagus limit the application of MII in achalasia and other motility disorders with serious impairment of esophageal clearance [3, 6, 93] (Figure 4).

MII-manometry did not show to be useful to predict dysphagia after antireflux operations [78]. Impaired flow through the esophagogastric junction may lead to dysphagia after fundoplication, however, this finding correlates with conventional manometric findings [94].

The combination of impedance and esophageal manometry allowed the identification of 4 patterns of swallows: (1) peristaltic waves (based on manometry) and bolus cleared (based on MII); (2) peristaltic waves without bolus clearance; (3) nonperistaltic or ineffective waves and bolus cleared; and (4) nonperistaltic or ineffective waves without bolus clearance. It is intuitive to understand and explain the concordance of MII and manometry findings represented by previous items (1) and (4). The understanding of items (3) and (4) boggles the mind to explain how bolus transit and muscular contraction are disconnected.

7. Conclusions

MII made great contributions for the understanding of esophageal physiology; however, direct clinical applications are few.

MII-pH was expected to identify patients with normal acid reflux and abnormal nonacidic reflux. Unfortunately, these patients are rarely found off therapy, that is, nonacidic reflux parallels acid reflux [95]; and the significance of isolated nonacidic reflux is unclear [1]. Repeating words by Sifrim and Zerbib [96]: “Combined pH-impedance has little added value in patients ‘off' therapy and virtually no outcome data exist to determine the optimal pH-impedance parameters.”

The significance of bolus transit is elusive. MII-manometry findings that contradicts manometry lacks better understanding and clinical implication.

Future technologies may fill these clinical expectancies. Molecular imprinting technology with biosensors to detect bile [97], an implantable, wireless, and batteryless impedance sensor capsule that infers impedance based on a direct measurement of capacitance and receives energy from an external source [98], and intraluminal miniultrasound [99] are examples in development.

1. Herbella FAM,Nipominick I,Patti MG. From sponges to capsules. The history of esophageal pH monitoringDiseases of the EsophagusYear: 2009222991032-s2.0-6054908403219018852
2. Silny J. Intraluminal multiple electric impedance procedure for measurement of gastrointestinal motilityJournal of Gastrointestinal MotilityYear: 1991331511622-s2.0-0025740566
3. Herbella FAM,Del Grande JC. New ambulatory techniques for assessment of esophageal motility and their applicability on achalasia studyRevista do Colegio Brasileiro de CirurgioesYear: 20083531992022-s2.0-54349103089
4. Farré R,Blondeau K,Clement D,et al. Evaluation of oesophageal mucosa integrity by the intraluminal impedance techniqueGutYear: 20116078858922-s2.0-7995820658821303918
5. Kessing BF,Bredenoord AJ,Weijenborg PW,Hemmink GJ,Loots CM,Smout AJ. Esophageal acid exposure decreases intraluminal baseline impedance levelsThe American Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 2011106122093209721844921
6. Fisichella PM,Patti MG. The evolution of oesophageal function testing and its clinical applications in the management of patients with oesophageal disordersDigestive and Liver DiseaseYear: 20094196266292-s2.0-6804913259619217836
7. Tuttle SG,Grossman MI. Detection of gastroesophageal reflux by simultaneous measurement of intraluminal pressure and pHProceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and MedicineYear: 19589822522713554600
8. Ayazi S,Lipham JC,Portale G,et al. Bravo catheter-free pH monitoring: normal values, concordance, optimal diagnostic thresholds, and accuracyClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyYear: 20097160672-s2.0-5804919139918976965
9. Quincke H. Ulcus oesophagis ex digestioneDeutsches Archiv für Klinische MedicinYear: 1879247279
10. Herbella FA,Patti MG. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: from pathophysiology to treatmentWorld Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 20101630374537492-s2.0-7795573496920698035
11. Vitale GC,Cheadle WG,Sadek S,Michel ME,Cuschieri A. Computerized 24-hour ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring and esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the reflux patient. A comparative studyAnnals of SurgeryYear: 198420067247282-s2.0-00217463406508402
12. Patti MG,Diener U,Tamburini A,Molena D,Way LW. Role of esophageal function tests in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux diseaseDigestive Diseases and SciencesYear: 20014635976022-s2.0-003504968011318538
13. Cortesini C,Marcuzzo G,Pucciani F. Relationship between mixed acid-alkaline gastroesophageal reflux and esophagitisItalian Journal of Surgical SciencesYear: 19851519152-s2.0-00219919393997475
14. Stoker DL,Williams JG. Alkaline reflux oesophagitisGutYear: 19913210109010922-s2.0-00260759931955159
15. Salo JA,Kivilaakso E. Contribution of trypsin and cholate to the pathogenesis of experimental alkaline reflex esophagitisScandinavian Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 19841978758812-s2.0-00217210156531656
16. Lillemoe KD,Johnson LF,Harmon JW. Alkaline esophagitis: a comparison of the ability of components of gastroduodenal contents to injure the rabbit esophagusGastroenterologyYear: 19838536216282-s2.0-00205935536307806
17. Pauwels A,Decraene A,Blondeau K,et al. Bile acids in sputum and increased airway inflammation in patients with cystic fibrosisChestYear: 201214161568157422135379
18. Gotley DC,Morgan AP,Cooper MJ. Bile acid concentrations in the refluxate of patients with reflux oesophagitisBritish Journal of SurgeryYear: 19887565875902-s2.0-00239008993395829
19. Johnsson F,Joelsson B,Floren CH,Nilsson A. Bile salts in the esophagus of patients with esophagitisScandinavian Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 19882367127162-s2.0-00237778393175533
20. Grabowski M,Kasran A,Seys S,et al. Pepsin and bile acids in induced sputum of chronic cough patientsRespiratory MedicineYear: 20111058125712612-s2.0-7995920451221592756
21. Stipa F,Stein HJ,Feussner H,Kraemer S,Siewert JR. Assessment of non-acid esophageal reflux: comparison between long-term reflux aspiration test and fiberoptic bilirubin monitoringDiseases of the EsophagusYear: 199710124282-s2.0-00310563089079269
22. Mattioli S,Pilotti V,Felice V,et al. Ambulatory 24-hr pH monitoring of esophagus, fundus, and antrum. A new technique for simultaneous study of gastroesophageal and duodenogastric refluxDigestive Diseases and SciencesYear: 19903589299382-s2.0-00252964082384038
23. Little AG,Martinez EI,DeMeester TR,Blough RM,Skinner DB. Duodenogastric reflux and reflux esophagitisSurgeryYear: 19849624474542-s2.0-00211492846463873
24. Tuncel M,Kıratlı PO,Aksoy T,Bozkurt MF. Gastroesophageal reflux scintigraphy: interpretation methods and inter-reader agreementWorld Journal of PediatricsYear: 20117324524921822991
25. Dolder M,Tutuian R. Laboratory based investigations for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux diseaseBest Practice and ResearchYear: 20102467877982-s2.0-78649760597
26. Oelschlager BK,Quiroga E,Isch JA,Cuenca-Abente F. Gastroesophageal and pharyngeal reflux detection using impedance and 24-hour pH monitoring in asymptomatic subjects: defining the normal environmentJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 200610154622-s2.0-2924443583116368491
27. Balaji NS,Blom D,DeMeester TR,Peters JH. Redefining gastroesophageal reflux (GER): detection using multichannel intraluminal impedance in healthy volunteersSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional TechniquesYear: 2003179138013852-s2.0-014165072712802643
28. Sifrim D,Castell D,Dent J,Kahrilas PJ. Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas refluxGutYear: 2004537102410312-s2.0-304261615315194656
29. Shay SS,Johnson LF,Richter JE. Acid rereflux: a review, emphasizing detection by impedance, manometry, and scintigraphy, and the impact on acid clearing pathophysiology as well as interpreting the pH recordDigestive Diseases and SciencesYear: 2003481192-s2.0-003728601512645783
30. Bredenoord AJ,Weusten BLAM,Timmer R,Conchillo JM,Smout AJPM. Addition of esophageal impedance monitoring to pH monitoring increases the yield of symptom association analysis in patients off PPI therapyAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 200610134534592-s2.0-3364478203616464226
31. Vela MF,Camacho-Lobato L,Srinivasan R,Tutuian R,Katz PO,Castell DO. Simultaneous intraesophageal impedance and pH measurement of acid and nonacid gastroesophageal reflux: effect of omeprazoleGastroenterologyYear: 20011207159916062-s2.0-003499591811375942
32. Zerbib F,Roman S,Ropert A,et al. Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring and symptom analysis in GERD: a study in patients off and on therapyAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 20061019195619632-s2.0-3374836987316848801
33. Bredenoord AJ,Weusten BLAM,Curvers WL,Timmer R,Smout AJPM. Determinants of perception of heartburn and regurgitationGutYear: 20065533133182-s2.0-3314446476716120760
34. Sifrim D,Dupont L,Blondeau K,Zhang X,Tack J,Janssens J. Weakly acidic reflux in patients with chronic unexplained cough during 24 hour pressure, pH, and impedance monitoringGutYear: 20055444494542-s2.0-1544438088115753524
35. Tamhankar AP,Peters JH,Portale G,et al. Omeprazole does not reduce gastroesophageal reflux: new insights using multichannel intraluminal impedance technologyJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 2004878908982-s2.0-1394425673115531244
36. Tutuian R,Vela MF,Hill EG,Mainie I,Agrawal A,Castell DO. Characteristics of symptomatic reflux episodes on acid suppressive therapyAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 20081035109010962-s2.0-4354910332618445095
37. Emerenziani S,Sifrim D,Habib FI,et al. Presence of gas in the refluxate enhances reflux perception in non-erosive patients with physiological acid exposure of the oesophagusGutYear: 20085744434472-s2.0-4114909504317766596
38. Wang AJ,Liang MJ,Jiang AY,et al. Gastroesophageal and laryngopharyngeal reflux detected by 24-hour combined impedance and pH monitoring in healthy Chinese volunteersJournal of Digestive DiseasesYear: 20111231731802-s2.0-7995759898921615870
39. Conchillo JM,Schwartz MP,Selimah M,Samsom M,Sifrim D,Smout AJ. Acid and non-acid reflux patterns in patients with erosive esophagitis and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD): a study using intraluminal impedance monitoringDigestive Diseases and SciencesYear: 2008536150615122-s2.0-4304912278317934853
40. Bredenoord AJ,Draaisma WA,Weusten BLAM,Gooszen HG,Smout AJPM. Mechanisms of acid, weakly acidic and gas reflux after anti-reflux surgeryGutYear: 20085721611662-s2.0-3854917888017895353
41. Shay S,Tutuian R,Sifrim D,et al. Twenty-four hour ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring: a multicenter report of normal values from 60 healthy volunteersAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 2004996103710432-s2.0-254248467615180722
42. Sifrim D,Holloway R,Silny J,et al. Acid, nonacid, and gas reflux in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease during ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance recordingsGastroenterologyYear: 20011207158815982-s2.0-003499583511375941
43. Zerbib F,Belhocine K,Simon M,et al. Clinical, but not oesophageal pH-impedance, profiles predict response to proton pump inhibitors in gastro-oesophageal reflux diseaseGutYear: 201261450150621997546
44. Blondeau K,Boecxstaens V,van Oudenhove L,Farré R,Boeckxstaens G,Tack J. Increasing body weight enhances prevalence and proximal extent of reflux in GERD patients ‘on’ and ‘off’ PPI therapyNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 2011238724e3272-s2.0-7996038941421535319
45. Savarino E,Zentilin P,Frazzoni M,et al. Characteristics of gastro-esophageal reflux episodes in Barrett’s esophagus, erosive esophagitis and healthy volunteersNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 201022101061e2802-s2.0-7795633809220557468
46. Kahrilas PJ,Sifrim D. High-resolution manometry and impedance-pH/manometry: valuable tools in clinical and investigational esophagologyGastroenterologyYear: 200813537567692-s2.0-5124912157818639550
47. Sifrim D,Holloway R,Silny J,Tack J,Lerut A,Janssens J. Composition of the postprandial refluxate in patients with gastroesophageal reflux diseaseAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 20019636476552-s2.0-003507587711280529
48. Vaezi MF,Richter JE. Role of acid and duodenogastroesophageal reflux in gastroesophageal reflux diseaseGastroenterologyYear: 19961115119211992-s2.0-00298112748898632
49. Francis DO,Goutte M,Slaughter JC,et al. Traditional reflux parameters and not impedance monitoring predict outcome after fundoplication in extraesophageal refluxLaryngoscopeYear: 201112191902191922024842
50. Rosen R,Levine P,Lewis J,Mitchell P,Nurko S. Reflux events detected by pH-MII do not determine fundoplication outcomeJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and NutritionYear: 20105032512552-s2.0-7764929025120118804
51. Vaezi MF. Reflux monitoring: on or off therapyAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 201110621831852-s2.0-7975151394721301447
52. Arnold BN,Dunst CM,Gill AB,Goers TA,Swanström LL. Postoperative impedance-pH testing is unreliable after Nissen fundoplication with or without giant hiatal hernia repairJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 2011159150615122-s2.0-7995959205421717283
53. von Renteln D,Schmidt A,Riecken B,Caca K. Evaluating outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness plication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with impedance monitoringSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional TechniquesYear: 2010245104010482-s2.0-7795565997619911228
54. Fox M. Bravo wireless versus catheter pH monitoring systemsGutYear: 20065534344352-s2.0-3314448232216474112
55. Wong WM,Bautista J,Dekel R,et al. Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring—a randomized trialAlimentary Pharmacology and TherapeuticsYear: 20052121551632-s2.0-1354425448215679765
56. Tseng D,Rizvi AZ,Fennerty MB,et al. Forty-eight-hour pH monitoring increases sensitivity in detecting abnormal esophageal acid exposureJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 200598104310522-s2.0-2764452697316269374
57. Ward EM,Devault KR,Bouras EP,et al. Successful oesophageal pH monitoring with a catheter-free systemAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsYear: 200419444945414871285
58. Remes-Troche JM,Ibarra-Palomino J,Carmona-Sánchez RI,Valdovinos MA. Performance, tolerability, and symptoms related to prolonged pH monitoring using the bravo system in MexicoAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 200510011238223862-s2.0-3364465157516279888
59. Lee YC,Wang HP,Chiu HM,et al. Patients with functional heartburn are more likely to report retrosternal discomfort during wireless pH monitoringGastrointestinal EndoscopyYear: 20056268348412-s2.0-2784456148216301022
60. des Varannes SB,Mion F,Ducrotté P,et al. Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo)GutYear: 20055412168216862-s2.0-2764443694115843417
61. Vaezi MF. Should we bravo?GastroenterologyYear: 20061307223822392-s2.0-3374454114816762647
62. Pandolfino JE,Richter JE,Ours T,Guardino JM,Chapman J,Kahrilas PJ. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless systemAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 20039847407492-s2.0-003870175312738450
63. Fox M. Bravo wireless versus catheter pH monitoring systemsGutYear: 20065534344352-s2.0-3314448232216474112
64. Pandolfino JE,Zhang Q,Schreiner MA,Ghosh S,Roth MP,Kahrilas PJ. Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different?GutYear: 20055412168716922-s2.0-2814445807115923666
65. Tseng D,Rizvi AZ,Fennerty MB,et al. Forty-eight-hour pH monitoring increases sensitivity in detecting abnormal esophageal acid exposureJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 200598104310522-s2.0-2764452697316269374
66. Sweis R,Fox M,Anggiansah A,Wong T. Prolonged, wireless pH-studies have a high diagnostic yield in patients with reflux symptoms and negative 24-h catheter-based pH-studiesNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 20112354194262-s2.0-7995442112221235685
67. Chen CL,Yi CH. Utility of esophageal impedance in identifying dysmotility in patients with erosive esophagitisDiseases of the EsophagusYear: 20082165395432-s2.0-5124912048418430181
68. Blonski W,Hila A,Jain V,Freeman J,Vela M,Castell DO. Impedance manometry with viscous test solution increases detection of esophageal function defects compared to liquid swallowsScandinavian Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 20074289179222-s2.0-3444712202017613920
69. Basseri B,Pimentel M,Shaye OA,Low K,Soffer EE,Conklin JL. Apple sauce improves detection of esophageal motor dysfunction during high-resolution manometry evaluation of dysphagiaDigestive Diseases and SciencesYear: 2011566172317282-s2.0-7995973865121181443
70. Chen CL,Yi CH,Chou AS,Liu TT. Esophageal solid bolus transit: studies using combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and manometry in healthy volunteers Diseases of the Esophagus. In press.
71. Nguyen HN,Domingues GRS,Lammert F. Technological insights: combined impedance manometry for esophageal motility testing-current results and further implicationsWorld Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 20061239626662732-s2.0-3375079910617072947
72. Tutuian R,Castell DO. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and manometry clarifies esophageal function abnormalities: study in 350 patientsAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 2004996101110192-s2.0-314266343915180718
73. Nguyen HN,Domingues GR,Winograd R,Lammert F,Silny J,Matern S. Impedance characteristics of esophageal motor function in achalasiaDiseases of the EsophagusYear: 200417144502-s2.0-304258224915209740
74. Conchillo JM,Nguyen NQ,Samsom M,Holloway RH,Smout AJPM. Multichannel intraluminal impedance monitoring in the evaluation of patients with non-obstructive dysphagiaAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 200510012262426322-s2.0-3364481818816393211
75. Tutuian R,Vela MF,Shay SS,Castell DO. Multichannel intraluminal impedance in esophageal function testing and gastroesophageal reflux monitoringJournal of Clinical GastroenterologyYear: 20033732062152-s2.0-004251037012960718
76. Kessing BF,Smout AJ,Bredenoord AJ. Clinical applications of esophageal impedance monitoring and high-resolution manometryCurrent Gastroenterology ReportsYear: 201214319720522350944
77. Cho YK,Choi MG,Oh SN,et al. Comparison of bolus transit patterns identified by esophageal impedance to barium esophagram in patients with dysphagiaDiseases of the EsophagusYear: 201225117252-s2.0-7995812677821668570
78. Montenovo M,Tatum RP,Figueredo E,et al. Does combined multichannel intraluminal esophageal impedance and manometry predict postoperative dysphagia after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication?Diseases of the EsophagusYear: 20092286566632-s2.0-7764932058519515186
79. Chen CL,Yi CH. Clinical correlates of dysphagia to oesophageal dysmotility: studies using combined manometry and impedanceNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 20082066116172-s2.0-4354911024718298439
80. Bogte A,Bredenoord AJ,Oors J,Siersema PD,Smout AJ. Relationship between esophageal contraction patterns and clearance of swallowed liquid and solid boluses in healthy controls and patients with dysphagiaNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 2012248e364e37222672410
81. Richter JE. Oesophageal motility disordersThe LancetYear: 200135892848238282-s2.0-0035828412
82. Bredenoord AJ,Fox M,Kahrilas PJ,et al. Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topographyNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 201224supplement 1576522248109
83. Pandolfino JE,Kwiatek MA,Nealis T,Bulsiewicz W,Post J,Kahrilas PJ. Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometryGastroenterologyYear: 20081355152615332-s2.0-5524908762218722376
84. Salvador R,Costantini M,Zaninotto G,et al. The preoperative manometric pattern predicts the outcome of surgical treatment for esophageal achalasiaJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 20101411163516452-s2.0-7795846356020830530
85. Lee TH,Lee JS,Kim WJ. High resolution impedance manometric findings in dysphagia of Huntington's diseaseWorld Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 201218141695169922529701
86. Jung KW,Jung HY,Romero Y,Katzka D,Murray JA. Impact of display alternatives in the determination of bolus handling: a study using high-resolution manometry with impedanceThe American Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 2011106101854185621979209
87. Hoshino M,Sundaram A,Juhasz A,et al. High-resolution impedance manometry findings in patients with nutcracker esophagusJournal of Gastroenterology and HepatologyYear: 201227359259721913983
88. Kessing BF,Govaert F,Masclee AA,Conchillo JM. Impedance measurements and high-resolution manometry help to better define rumination episodesScandinavian Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 201146111310131521815865
89. Bulsiewicz WJ,Kahrilas PJ,Kwiatek MA,Ghosh SK,Meek A,Pandolfino JE. Esophageal pressure topography criteria indicative of incomplete bolus clearance: a study using high-resolution impedance manometryAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 200910411272127282-s2.0-7204908798919690527
90. Roman S,Lin Z,Kwiatek MA,Pandolfino JE,Kahrilas PJ. Weak peristalsis in esophageal pressure topography: classification and association with dysphagiaAmerican Journal of GastroenterologyYear: 201110623493562-s2.0-7975152721320924368
91. Chen CL,Yi CH. Clinical correlates of dysphagia to oesophageal dysmotility: studies using combined manometry and impedanceNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 20082066116172-s2.0-4354911024718298439
92. Lazarescu A,Karamanolis G,Aprile L,De Oliveira RB,Dantas R,Sifrim D. Perception of dysphagia: lack of correlation with objective measurements of esophageal functionNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 20102212129212972-s2.0-7834926121620718946
93. Conchillo JM,Selimah M,Bredenoord AJ,Samsom M,Smout AJPM. Assessment of oesophageal emptying in achalasia patients by intraluminal impedance monitoringNeurogastroenterology and MotilityYear: 200618119719772-s2.0-3374998928417040407
94. Myers JC,Jamieson GG,Sullivan T,Dent J. Dysphagia and gastroesophageal junction resistance to flow following partial and total fundoplicationJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 201216347548521913039
95. Ang D,Ang TL,Teo EK,et al. Is impedance pH monitoring superior to the conventional 24-h pH meter in the evaluation of patients with laryngorespiratory symptoms suspected to be due to gastroesophageal reflux disease?Journal of Digestive DiseasesYear: 201112534134821955426
96. Sifrim D,Zerbib F. Diagnosis and management of patients with reflux symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitorsGutYear: 20126191340135422684483
97. Nehra D. Bile in the esophagus-model for a bile acid biosensorJournal of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYear: 201014supplement 1S6S819774428
98. Ativanichayaphong T,Tang SJ,Wang J,et al. An implantable, wireless and batteryless impedance sensor capsule for detecting acidic and non-acidic reflux [abstract] Digestive Disease Week, San Diego, Calif, USA, 2008.
99. Gao X,Sadowski DC,Mintchev MP. Intraluminal ultrasonic probe for volumetric monitoring of liquid gastroesophageal refluxPhysiological MeasurementYear: 201233348750122373519

Article Categories:
  • Review Article

Previous Document:  Antimicrobial or subantimicrobial antibiotic therapy as an adjunct to the nonsurgical periodontal tr...
Next Document:  Evaluation of X-Chromosome Inactivation Patterns in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia during Remi...