View Item 

Show simple item record

Clinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non-responders: recommendation statements
dc.contributor.authorYadlapati, Rena
dc.contributor.authorGawron, Andrew J.
dc.contributor.authorGyawali, C. Prakash
dc.contributor.authorChen, Joan
dc.contributor.authorClarke, John
dc.contributor.authorFass, Ronnie
dc.contributor.authorJain, Anand
dc.contributor.authorLynch, Kristle
dc.contributor.authorKhan, Abraham
dc.contributor.authorKatz, Philip O.
dc.contributor.authorKatzka, David A.
dc.contributor.authorRichter, Joel
dc.contributor.authorSchnoll-Sussman, Felice
dc.contributor.authorSpechler, Stuart J.
dc.contributor.authorVaezi, Michael F.
dc.contributor.authorVela, Marcelo
dc.contributor.authorPandolfino, John E.
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-05T15:51:27Z
dc.date.available2023-11-05 11:51:26en
dc.date.available2022-10-05T15:51:27Z
dc.date.issued2022-10
dc.identifier.citationYadlapati, Rena; Gawron, Andrew J.; Gyawali, C. Prakash; Chen, Joan; Clarke, John; Fass, Ronnie; Jain, Anand; Lynch, Kristle; Khan, Abraham; Katz, Philip O.; Katzka, David A.; Richter, Joel; Schnoll-Sussman, Felice ; Spechler, Stuart J.; Vaezi, Michael F.; Vela, Marcelo; Pandolfino, John E. (2022). "Clinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non- responders: recommendation statements." Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (8): 1274-1283.
dc.identifier.issn0269-2813
dc.identifier.issn1365-2036
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/174914
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherRAND
dc.titleClinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non-responders: recommendation statements
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPharmacy and Pharmacology
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOtolaryngology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/174914/1/apt17180.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/174914/2/apt17180_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/apt.17180
dc.identifier.sourceAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
dc.identifier.citedreferenceConnor J, Richter J. Increasing yield also increases false positives and best serves to exclude GERD. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101: 460 – 3.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShekelle PG, Kahan JP, Bernstein SJ, Leape LL, Kamberg CJ, Park RE. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 1888 – 95.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHalverson AL, Sellers MM, Bilimoria KY, Hawn MT, Williams MV, McLeod R, et al. Identification of process measures to reduce postoperative readmission. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014; 18: 1407 – 15.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Lillemoe KD, Talamonti MS, Ko CY, Pancreatic Cancer Quality Indicator Development Expert Panel, American College of Surgeons. Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101: 848 – 59.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBilimoria KY, Raval MV, Bentrem DJ, Wayne JD, Balch CM, Ko CY. National assessment of melanoma care using formally developed quality indicators. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 5445 – 51.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAguilar MD, Fitch K, Lazaro P, Bernstein SJ. The appropriateness of use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in Spain. Int J Cardiol 2001; 78: 213 – 21; discussion 221- 3.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBernstein SJ, Lázaro P, Fitch K, Aguilar MD, Kahan JP. Effect of specialty and nationality on panel judgments of the appropriateness of coronary revascularization: a pilot study. Med Care. 2001; 39: 513 – 20.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ko CY, Shekelle PG. The appropriateness method has acceptable reliability and validity for assessing overuse and underuse of surgical procedures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65: 1133 – 43.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaggard MA, McGory ML, Shekelle PG, Ko CY. Quality indicators in bariatric surgery: improving quality of care. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2006; 2: 423 – 9; discussion 429-30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcGory ML, Shekelle PG, Ko CY. Development of quality indicators for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 1623 – 33.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, Guardino JM, Chapman J, Kahrilas PJ. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98: 740 – 9.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWiener GJ, Morgan TM, Copper JB, Castell DO, Sinclair JW, Richter JE. Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. Reproducibility and variability of pH parameters. Dig Dis Sci. 1988; 33: 1127 – 33.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhlawat SK, Novak DJ, Williams DC, Maher KA, Barton F, Benjamin SB. Day-to-day variability in acid reflux patterns using the BRAVO pH monitoring system. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006; 40: 20 – 4.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHasak S, Yadlapati R, Altayar O, Sweis R, Tucker E, Knowles K, et al. Prolonged wireless pH monitoring in patients with persistent reflux symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 18: 2912 – 9.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYadlapati R, Ciolino JD, Craft J, Roman S, Pandolfino JE. Trajectory assessment is useful when day-to-day esophageal acid exposure varies in prolonged wireless pH monitoring. Dis Esophagus. 2019; 32.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePenagini R, Sweis R, Mauro A, Domingues G, Vales A, Sifrim D. Inconsistency in the diagnosis of functional heartburn: usefulness of prolonged wireless pH monitoring in patients with proton pump inhibitor refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015; 21: 265 – 72.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScarpulla G, Camilleri S, Galante P, Manganaro M, Fox M. The impact of prolonged pH measurements on the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease: 4-day wireless pH studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102: 2642 – 7.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSweis 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-studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011; 23: 419 – 26.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirano I, Zhang Q, Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ. Four-day Bravo pH capsule monitoring with and without proton pump inhibitor therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005; 3: 1083 – 8.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLacy BE, Dukowicz AC, Robertson DJ, Weiss JE, Teixeira P, Kelley ML. Clinical utility of the wireless pH capsule. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011; 45: 429 – 35.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePandolfino JE, Kwiatek MA. Use and utility of the Bravo pH capsule. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008; 42: 571 – 8.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrakash C, Clouse RE. Value of extended recording time with wireless pH monitoring in evaluating gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005; 3: 329 – 34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoman S, Mion F, Zerbib F, Benamouzig R, Letard JC, Bruley des Varannes S. Wireless pH capsule—yield in clinical practice. Endoscopy. 2012; 44: 270 – 6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, Öberg S. Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: feasibility, safety and normal values in healthy subjects. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2005; 40: 768 – 74.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrill JT, Naik RD, Higginbotham T, Slaughter JC, Holzman MD, Francis DO, et al. Association between response to acid-suppression therapy and efficacy of antireflux surgery in patients with extraesophageal reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 15: 675 – 81.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAziz Q, Fass R, Gyawali CP, Miwa H, Pandolfino JE, Zerbib F. Functional esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology. 2016; 150: 1368 – 79.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGyawali CP, Tutuian R, Zerbib F, Rogers BD, Frazzoni M, Roman S, et al. Value of pH impedance monitoring while on twice-daily proton pump inhibitor therapy to identify need for escalation of reflux management. Gastroenterology. 2021; 161: 1412 – 22.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePatel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Parameters on esophageal pH-impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 884 – 91.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRusu RI, Fox MR, Tucker E, Zeki S, Dunn JM, Jafari J, et al. Validation of the Lyon classification for GORD diagnosis: acid exposure time assessed by prolonged wireless pH monitoring in healthy controls and patients with erosive oesophagitis. Gut. 2021; 70: 2230 – 7.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVisaggi P, Mariani L, Svizzero FB, Tarducci L, Sostilio A, Frazzoni M, et al. Clinical use of mean nocturnal baseline impedance and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index for the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Esophagus. 2022.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYadlapati R, Gyawali CP, Pandolfino JE. AGA clinical practice update on the personalized approach to the evaluation and management of GERD: expert review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 20: 984, e1 – 94.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGawron AJ, Bell R, Abu Dayyeh BK, Buckley FP, Chang K, Dunst CM, et al. Surgical and endoscopic management options for patients with GERD based on proton pump inhibitor symptom response: recommendations from an expert U.S. panel. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020; 92 ( 78–87 ): e2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYadlapati R, Vaezi MF, Vela MF, Spechler SJ, Shaheen NJ, Richter J, et al. Management options for patients with GERD and persistent symptoms on proton pump inhibitors: recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018; 113: 980 – 6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGyawali CP, Carlson DA, Chen JW, Patel A, Wong RJ, Yadlapati RH. ACG clinical guidelines: clinical use of esophageal physiologic testing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020; 115: 1412 – 28.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, Zerbib F, Mion F, Smout AJPM, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon consensus. Gut. 2018; 67: 1351 – 62.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ. ACG clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021; 117 ( 1 ): 27 – 56.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZerbib F, Bredenoord AJ, Fass R, Kahrilas PJ, Roman S, Savarino E, et al. ESNM/ANMS consensus paper: diagnosis and management of refractory gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020; 33 ( 4 ): e14075.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpechler SJ, Hunter JG, Jones KM, Lee R, Smith BR, Mashimo H, et al. Randomized trial of medical versus surgical treatment for refractory heartburn. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 1513 – 23.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYadlapati R, Masihi M, Gyawali CP, Carlson DA, Kahrilas PJ, Nix BD, et al. Ambulatory reflux monitoring guides proton pump inhibitor discontinuation in patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: a clinical trial. Gastroenterology 2021; 160: 174 – 182 e1.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYadlapati R, Gyawali PC, Masihi M, Carlson DA, Kahrilas PJ, Nix BD, et al. Optimal wireless reflux monitoring metrics to predict discontinuation of proton pump inhibitor therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2022, Publish ahead of print.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, Lacalle JR. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. Santa Monica: RAND; 2001.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYadlapati R, Gawron AJ, Keswani RN, Bilimoria K, Castell DO, Dunbar KB, et al. Identification of quality measures for performance of and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 14: 526, e1 – 34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYadlapati R, Gawron AJ, Bilimoria K, Keswani RN, Dunbar KB, Kahrilas PJ, et al. Development of quality measures for the care of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 874, e2 – 83.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
apt17180.pdf
Size:
562.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
apt17180_am.pdf
Size:
440.2KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.