Gastric secretion pH measurement: what you see is not what you get!

Measuring Gastric pH in Tube-fed Children With Neurologic Impairments and Gastroesophageal Disease

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to determine the extent of agreement between pH paper and handheld pH meter with a laboratory pH meter for gastric pH measurement in children with neurologic impairments and gastrostomy tubes who have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, gastric contents were aspirated from gastric or nasogastric tubes and the pH measured using 3 techniques: pH paper, handheld pH meter, and laboratory pH meter (the gold standard). Agreement between techniques was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and kappa statistic.

RESULTS

Among 43 patients contributing 67 gastric samples, the ICC was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.97) between the handheld and laboratory meters, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63--0.94) between the pH paper and laboratory meter and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63-0.94) between the handheld meter and paper. The Bland-Altman analysis between the handheld and lab meters showed a mean difference of -0.03 pH units (limits of agreement: -0.52 to 0.47 pH units) and 0.17 pH units (limits of agreement: -0.99 to 1.33 pH units) between the paper and lab meter. The kappa coefficients for a pH ≥4 were 1.0 (95% CI: 1.0--1.0) between the handheld and lab meters and 0.9 (95% CI: 0.77--1.0) between the paper and lab meter.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that both point-of-care tests, the pH meter and pH paper, correlate well with the gold standard for testing pH with a laboratory pH meter, indicating usefulness in point-of-care testing for monitoring gastric pH in tube-fed children with neurologic impairments and GERD.

Clinical utility of pH paper versus pH meter in the measurement of critical gastric pH in stress ulcer prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical utility of measuring gastric pH with a pH meter vs. pH paper in critical care patients.

DESIGN

Prospective comparison of gastric pH measurements, using both pH meter and pH paper.

SETTING

Surgical intensive care unit (ICU) at a rural Midwestern university medical center.

PATIENTS

Fifty-one patients who received therapy for prophylaxis of stress ulcers in the surgical ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

Therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis was monitored.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The pH of 985 gastric samples, taken from 51 patients, was measured with both pH meter and pH paper. The pH meter and pH paper measures demonstrated a concordance correlation coefficient of .896. The mean difference between the two measures (pH paper - pH meter) was estimated to be between -0.4 and 1.4, suggesting a positive bias for the paper. The prevalence of events representing clinically relevant differences between the pH meter and pH paper in the measurement of the same gastric sample was calculated. The frequency with which each of the events occurred consecutively (or, in one case, two nearly consecutive events on the same day) was also calculated. Bias in a clinically relevant range was estimated. A set of "probability profiles" was constructed.

CONCLUSIONS

A hand-held pH meter and pH paper are not interchangeable measures of gastric pH. The pH paper exhibits an appreciable positive bias compared with a hand-held pH meter in the clinically relevant range of 2 to 6. More research is needed to determine if that bias affects treatment outcomes. We recommend the use of a pH meter for patients who demonstrate pH readings of < or = 4, consecutive with readings of < or = 5.

Assessment of gastric acidity in intensive care patients: intermittent pH registration cannot replace continuous pH monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To test the accuracy of colour-scaled indicator papers to measure pH values and to study the correlation between this method of measuring gastric juice pH once daily and 24-h continuous intragastric pH monitoring in intensive care patients.

DESIGN

The accuracy of indicator papers was tested in the laboratory using colourless solutions and aspirated gastric juice and was then verified with a laboratory pH meter. Continuous intragastric pH monitoring was performed in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Percentages of time with a pH value <3.0 and median pH values by 24-h continuous intragastric pH monitoring were compared to pH values measured once daily with indicator paper.

SETTING

A mixed ICU.

PATIENTS

A total of 150 measurements were taken by continuous pH monitoring in 91 mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The correlation between the pH measured with the indicator paper and subsequently verified with a laboratory pH meter in colourless solutions was 0.96 [regression coefficient (RC) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.05]. Measured in gastric juice it was 0.95 (RC 0.95, 95% CI 0.88-1.01). The correlation between median pH values, determined with 24-h continuous intragastric pH monitoring, and values measured with indicator papers was 0.39 (RC 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.59). The mean difference in pH, as determined by the analysis of Bland and Altman], was 0.9 with a SD of 4.7. The correlation between the percentage of time with pH < 3.0, as obtained with continuous registration, and median gastric pH values (also obtained with continuous registration) was -0.94 (RC-0.06, 95% CI-0.06- -0.05); the correlation between the time and gastric pH values (measured with indicator paper) was-0.40 (RC-0.02, 95% CI-0.03- -0.02).

CONCLUSION

The colour-scaled indicator paper is an accurate method of measuring pH values, but there is a poor correlation between gastric pH values measured once daily and a total measurement derived from 24-h continuous intragastric pH monitoring. Changes in intragastric pH values cannot be accurately studied when measuring acidity once daily. The influence of various treatment regimens on intragastric acidity in relation to the development of gastric colonization and nosocomial pneumonia should be investigated either with continuous intragastric monitoring or with frequent measurements in aspirated gastric juice.

Changing perspectives of stress gastritis prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To present recent advances in stress gastritis prophylaxis in the critically ill and review considerations in selection of a prophylactic agent.

DATA SOURCES

Information was obtained from MEDLINE search, reference lists from articles identified in search, and from review articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Emphasis was placed on controlled trials conducted within the last 5 years.

DATA EXTRACTION

All literature was assessed for methodology, results, and conclusions. Results of prospective, randomized trials, and meta-analyses are summarized.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Histamine2-receptor antagonists, antacids, and sucralfate appear equally effective in preventing stress gastritis in the critically ill. A definitive cause-effect relationship between histamine2-receptor antagonists and increased incidence of nosocomial pneumonia has not yet been established. The indications for using a prophylactic agent and consideration in selecting an agent should include an evaluation of the following: risk factors for gastritis including the type of intensive care patient, comparative efficacy, adverse effects, drug interactions, cost, and ease of administration. The least expensive, safest agent requiring minimal monitoring is sucralfate. Prevention of stress gastritis has never been shown to reduce morbidity or mortality significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Controversies still exist regarding the need to provide prophylaxis, the choice of an agent, and the relative importance of previously identified risk factors. Further well-designed studies are needed before consensus can be reached.

Nasointestinal tube placement with a pH sensor feeding tube

Radiographic confirmation of enteral feeding tube placement is a common practice representing considerable expense and causing delay in the initiation of enteral nutrition therapy. We evaluated an enteral feeding tube with a pH sensor, which allows immediate verification of the location of the tube by assessment of the pH upon insertion. Insertion pHs were obtained for 24 intensive care unit patients requiring feeding tube placement. Placement was verified radiographically and compared with expected location on the basis of the pH profile. The radiograph and the insertion pH profile were in agreement in 87.5% (21 of 24) of the cases. Concomitant use of histamine blockers did not affect the ability of the pH sensor to detect placement accurately (Fisher's Exact Test, p 5.71) Use of these pH measurements eliminates the need for radiographic documentation of placement, provides a savings for the patient, and may be beneficial in promoting enteral feedings in critically ill patients.

Oesophageal obstruction during nasogastric feeding

Although complications of enteral feeding are usually minor, we report an unusual and serious case of oesophageal obstruction after feeding with osmolite, a commonly used polymeric enteral feeding preparation. The patient described underwent rigid oesophagoscopy to remove the feed which had solidified and blocked the entire oesophageal lumen. The procedure resulted in oesophageal perforation which needed surgical repair by thoracolaparotomy and was followed by a difficult postoperative course. In vitro tests showed that all commonly used feeds containing casein (osmolite, ensure, ensure plus, paediasure, fortison, and pulmocare) solidified at a pH of less than 5. Clinifeed (containing dried skim milk) and peptamen (containing peptides) remained liquid at a pH of less than 1. Solidified feed could be liquefied by the addition of pepsin or pancrex V (a pancreatic enzyme formulation). We conclude that solidification could occur in all feeds containing casein and that alternative feeds should be considered in patients with increased gastric acidity. In addition, pepsin or pancrex V could be used to liquefy solidified feed.

The effect of duodenojejunal alimentation on gastric pH and hormones in intensive care unit patients

We evaluated effects of duodenojejunal (DJ) feeding on gastric pH and selected gastrointestinal hormones in 13 randomly selected patients in an intensive care unit (ICU). To obtain baseline values for gastric pH, a nasogastric (NG) tube was placed in each patient and gastric pH was measured every 30 minutes for 2 hours. To obtain control values, a Dobbhoff tube was placed fluoroscopically and 0.45 percent saline solution (NaCl), 75 ml, was infused for 1 hour and gastric pH was measured again; the previously placed NG tube was left in position. Then, by randomization, either 0.45 percent NaCl (pH = 5) was continued (n = 6) or a high-nitrogen, isotonic, enteral feeding solution (Osmolite HN, pH = 6.4) (n = 7) was infused, both at 75 ml/h. Gastric pH was noted hourly for 96 hours; antacid (Maalox TC, 15-ml aliquots) was given by NG tube when the pH was 4 or less. After 96 hours, the infusion was stopped and gastric pH was noted for 4 additional hours. Before and during initial saline solution infusion; after 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours of continuous infusion; and 4 hours after stopping the infusion, peripheral venous blood was obtained for measurement of plasma gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) and serum gastrin. Data were analyzed by ANOVA (RMD), Fishers' exact test, and the unpaired t-test. Groups did not differ demographically. Throughout the infusion, gastric pH tended to be higher with the enteral feeding solution than with saline solution, but this was significant only at 24 hours. Less antacid was required with the enteral feeding solution at 24 and 48 hours than with saline solution. Plasma GIP levels were significantly higher with the enteral feeding solution than with saline solution during most of the infusion. Serum gastrin levels did not differ between the groups. In this cohort, infusion of the enteral feeding solution tended to maintain a gastric pH of more than 4 and was associated with increased plasma GIP levels, which may inhibit gastric acid secretion. Early enteral feeding may benefit certain ICU patients.