MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PTU-140 The Effect of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIS) on Oesophageal Acid Reflux using a Prolonged Wire-Less Bravo PH Monitoring

2013· article· en· W2055998785 on OpenAlexaff
G Sui, Mark Fox, Angela Anggiansah, Andres Vales, Terence Z. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefluxMedicineHeartburnSupine positionInternal medicineInterquartile rangeGastroenterologyChest painDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Recently prolonged catheter-free pH monitoring (Bravo ® , Given Imaging, Yoqeam, Israel) up to 96 hours has become possible which enables more physiological evaluation of oesophageal acid exposure and its response to therapeutic interventions. This study applied this technology to measure acid reflux, and reflux related symptoms in patients with proven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on and off high-dose PPIs. The potential utility of this methodology in guiding medical therapy was assessed. Methods Patients with reflux symptoms were recruited prospectively from Mar.2012 to Oct.2012. PPI was stopped for 7 days prior to the Bravo capsule insertion. The 1st 48hr pH recording was performed off PPI and the 2nd 48hr was on twice daily PPI. The 48hr pH and symptom data for the two periods were compared, including percentages of acid exposure in total, upright and supine periods and symptom–reflux association for which heartburn (HB), chest pain (CP) and regurgitation (RG) were analysed. Data were expressed as median & interquartile. Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann Whitney tests were used for statistical analysis (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; *** < 0.001). Results Data from prolonged pH monitoring up to 96 hours were available from 89patients of whom 36 (22 males, mean age 50, range 26–76 years old) with complete studies and pathological acid exposure in the 1st 48 hours were studied in detail. Acid reflux measurements on PPI therapy were greatly reduced when compared to those recorded off therapy (Table). 27/36 (75%) patients had normal acid exposure on PPI therapy. The overall number of HB and CP reported in the 2nd 48hr period was reduced by almost two thirds (13 (4–26) vs.5 (2–14)**); however the number of these symptoms that were actually associated with acid reflux events was almost completely abolished (4 (2–14) vs.1 (0–3)***). No effect on volume RG was present. Abstract PTU-140 Table The effects of PPI on oesophageal acid reflux and symptoms (Off PPI/On PPI) Fraction time pH < 4(%): Total 10.45(7.2–15.5)/1.9 (0.6–4.9) *** Upright 9.4(6.1–15.6)/2.5(0.9–5.3)*** Supine 9.7(5.0–16.1)/0.1(0–2.2)*** No. of reflux events associated with symptoms: HB 8(2–15)/1(0–3)*** RG 2(1–8)/1(0–3)(P = 0.0975) CP 3(2–6)/1(0–3)* Conclusion Sequential 48hrs recording off/on PPI therapy using Bravo pH test is feasible in routine clinical practise. This technique documents the physiological and clinical response to PPI therapy on acid reflux and acid reflux associated symptoms (i.e. heartburn, chest pain). These preliminary findings suggest that this methodology could be of value in distinguishing symptoms related to acid reflux that respond to acid suppression and guiding medical therapy in reflux disease. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207