4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Measurement of gastric pH in ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0218-0

关键词

Diagnosis; Esophageal pH monitoring; Esophagus; Gastric acid; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; GERD

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring is the method used most widely to quantify gastroesophageal reflux. The degree of gastroesophageal reflux may potentially be underestimated if the resting gastric pH is high. Normal subjects and symptomatic patients undergoing 24-h pH monitoring were studied to determine whether a relationship exists between resting gastric pH and the degree of esophageal acid exposure. Normal volunteers (n = 54) and symptomatic patients without prior gastric surgery and off medication (n = 1,582) were studied. Gastric pH was measured by advancing the pH catheter into the stomach before positioning the electrode in the esophagus. The normal range of gastric pH was defined from the normal subjects, and the patients then were classified as having either normal gastric pH or hypochlorhydria. Esophageal acid exposure was compared between the two groups. The normal range for gastric pH was 0.3-2.9. The median age of the 1,582 patients was 51 years, and their median gastric pH was 1.7. Abnormal esophageal acid exposure was found in 797 patients (50.3%). Hypochlorhydria (resting gastric pH > 2.9) was detected in 176 patients (11%). There was an inverse relationship between gastric pH and esophageal acid exposure (r = -0.13). For the patients with positive 24-h pH test results, the major effect of gastric pH was that the hypochlorhydric patients tended to have more reflux in the supine position than those with normal gastric pH. There is an inverse, dose-dependent relationship between gastric pH and esophageal acid exposure. Negative 24-h esophageal pH test results for a patient with hypochlorhydria may prompt a search for nonacid reflux as the explanation for the patient's symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据