Wireless capsule pH monitoring: does it fulfil all expectations?

WIRELESS PH MONITORING AND CONVENTIONAL ESOPHAGEAL PH MONITORING: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DISCOMFORT, LIMITATIONS IN DAILY ACTIVITIES AND COMPLICATIONS

Background:

The catheter of the esophageal pH monitoring is associated with nasal and throat discomfort, and different behave in patients. The capsule of the wireless pH monitoring may cause chest pain and complications.

Aim:

To compare the wireless and conventional pH monitoring concerning the degree of discomfort and limitations in daily activities, complications, ability to diagnose pathological reflux, and costs.

Methods: Twenty-five patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux were prospectively submitted, in a simultaneous initial period, to 24-hour catheter esophageal pH monitoring and 48-hour wireless system. After removing each system, patients underwent a specific clinical questionnaire.

Results:

Fifteen patients (60%) pointed a higher discomfort in the introduction of the capsule (p=0.327). Discomfort and limitations in daily activities were lower on 2^nd day (p<0.05); however, continued to be expressive (32% to 44%). Chest pain occurred in 13 (52%) patients. The diagnostic gain of pathological reflux was 12% with the wireless system (p=0.355).

Conclusions:

1) There is no significant difference between the discomfort mentioned in the introduction of the capsule and the catheter; 2) during reflux monitoring, the wireless system provides significant less discomfort and limitations in daily activities; 3) there is no significant difference between the two methods in the ability to diagnose pathological reflux; 4) wireless pH monitoring has higher cost.

Safety and Efficacy of Wireless pH Monitoring in Patients Suspected of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety, technical efficacy, and effectiveness of 48-hour wireless pH monitoring (WM) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), compared with no pH monitoring in patients who failed to tolerate a catheter. In the absence of eligible studies, the secondary aim was to determine these performance characteristics for WM relative to catheter-based pH monitoring (CBM) in patients suspected of GERD, who are able to tolerate a catheter.

METHODS

A protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42013005852) before conducting the systematic review, which included the study selection criteria, and critical appraisal methods. Several key databases were searched to identify eligible comparative studies.

RESULTS

Chest pain occurred more often with WM compared with CBM; however, other adverse events were reported less frequently with WM. Technical failures, mostly due to attachment failures and early capsule detachments, were 3 times higher with WM, compared with CBM, [pooled relative risk (from meta-analysis)=3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-6.81; I=0%; P=0.012; k=8). The sensitivity and specificity of WM varied widely, depending on type of analysis, monitoring time, capsule placement, reference standard, and diagnostic threshold.

DISCUSSION

WM is usually better tolerated than CBM but has more technical problems. Test accuracy was highly variable between studies; therefore, conclusions could not be drawn regarding the performance of the 2 tests. To make meaningful comparisons between WM and CBM a consensus is needed on the diagnostic threshold for GERD, monitoring time, appropriate capsule positioning, and the reference standard.