Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 6/2015

01-06-2015 | 2014 SSAT Plenary Presentation

More Art than Science: Impedance Analysis Prone to Interpretation Error

Authors: Thomas Ciecierega, Benjamin L. Gordon, Anna Aronova, Carl V. Crawford, Rasa Zarnegar

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Impedance monitoring for reflux evaluation does not have standardized scoring, which can confound interpretation between observers. We investigated the variability of impedance testing interpretation between physicians and computer software.

Methods

Raw impedance data from 38 patients that underwent impedance monitoring at a tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2013 were collected. Two physicians and computer software each analyzed the same impedance dataset for reflux activity and symptom-reflux correlation.

Results

Normalized reflux activity interpretations did not differ between physicians and the computer for acid or non-acid reflux. However, for weakly acidic reflux, there was significant difference between physicians (p < 0.01) and between physician and computer (p < 0.01). In analyzing all reflux, significant variability existed between physicians (p < 0.01) but not between physician and computer. Variability in interpretation altered diagnosis in 24 % of patients when comparing between physicians, 18 % of patients when comparing both physicians to the computer, and an additional 24 % of cases when comparing a single physician to the computer. Symptom-reflux correlation differed in 7 % of physician-physician comparisons versus 8 % of computer-physician comparisons.

Conclusion

Impedance testing analysis is subject to marked variability between physicians and computer software, making impedance prone to interpretation error that can lead to differences in diagnosis and management.
Literature
1.
Shaheen NJ, Hansen RA, Morgan DR, Gangarosa LM, Ringel Y, Thiny MT, Russo MW, Sandler RS. The Burden of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, 2006. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:2128–2138.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
El-Serag HB. Time Trends of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:17–26.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lagergren J, Bergström R Lindren A, Nyrén O. Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux as a Risk Factor for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999;340:825–831.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Wahlqvist P, Reilly MC, Barkun A. Systematic review: the impact of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on work productivity. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;24:259–272.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kahrilas PJ. Clinical Practice. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1700–1707.CrossRef
7.
Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF. Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:308–328.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kleiman DA, Zarnegar R. An old tool may fix a new problem: early utilization of 24-h esophageal pH monitoring may reduce unnecessary proton-pump inhibitor use and improve outcomes. J Comp Eff Res 2013;2:409–411.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Numans ME, Lau J, de Wit NJ, Bonis PA. Short-Term Treatment with Proton-Pump Inhibitors as a Test for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:518–527.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Cremonini F, Ziogas DC, Chang HY, Kokkotou E, Kelley JM, Conboy L, Kaptchuk TJ, Lembo AJ. Meta-analysis: the effects of placebo treatment on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;32:29–42.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
12.
DeVault KR, Castell DO. Updated Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:190–200.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Venables TL, Newland RD, Patel AC, Hole J, Wilcock C, Turbitt ML. Omeprazole 10 Milligrams Once Daily, Omeprazole 20 Milligrams Once Daily, or Ranitidine 150 Milligrams Twice Daily, Evaluated as Initial Therapy for the Relief of Symptoms of Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease in General Practice. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997;32:965–973.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Streets CG, DeMeester T. Ambulatory 24-hour Esophageal pH Monitoring: Why, When, and What to Do. J Clin Gastroenterol 2003;37:14–22.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Hirano I, Richter JE. ACG Practice Guidelines: Esophageal Reflux Testing. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:668–685.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Pandolfino, JE, Richter JE, Ours T, Guardino JM, Chapman J, Kahrilas PJ. Ambulatory Esophageal pH Monitoring Using a Wireless System. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:740–749.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kohata Y, Fujiwara Y, Machida H, Okazaki H, Yamagami H, Tanigawa T, Watanabe K, Watanabe T, Tominaga K, Arakawa T. Pathogenesis of proton-pump inhibitor-refractory non-erosive reflux disease according to multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:58–62.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Johnsson F, Joelsson B. Reproducibility of ambulatory oesophageal pH monitoring. Gut 1988;886–889.
19.
Wiener GJ, Morgan TM, Copper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO, Sinclair JW, Richter JE. Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. Reproducibility and variability of pH parameters. Dig Dis Sci 1988;33:1127–1133.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Jamieson JR, Stein HJ, DeMeester TR, Bonavina L, Schwizer W, Hinder RA, Albertucci M. Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Am J Gastroenterol 1992;87:1102–1111.PubMed
21.
Zhou LY, Wang Y, Lu JJ, Lin L, Cui RL, Zhang HJ, Xue Y, Ding SG, Lin SR. Accuracy of the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease by GerdQ questionnaire, esophageal impedance monitoring and histology [published online ahead of print February 16 2014]. J Dig Dis 2014. doi: 10.​1111/​1751-2980.
22.
Bredenoord AJ, Weusten B, Timmer R, Conchillo JM, Smout A. Addition of Esophageal Impedance Monitoring to pH Monitoring Increases the Yield of Symptom Association Analysis in Patients off PPI Therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:453–459.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Shay S. Esophageal Impedance Monitoring: The Ups and Downs of a New Test. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1020–1022.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Loots CM, van Wijk MP, Blondeau K, Dalby K, Peeters L, Rosen R, Salvator S, Wenzl TG, Vandenplas Y, Benninga MA, Omari T. Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability in pH-Impedance Analysis between 10 Experts and Automated Analysis. J Pediatr 2012;160:441–446.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hemmink GJM, Bredenoord AJ, Aanen MC, Weusten BLAM, Timmer R, Smout AJPM. Computer analysis of 24-h esophageal impedance signals. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:271–276.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Roman S, Des Varannes SB, Pouderoux P, Chaput U, Mion F, Galmiche JP. Ambulatory 24-h oesophageal impedance-pH recordings: reliability of automatic analysis of gastro-oesophageal reflux assessment. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2006;18:978–986.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Dalby K, Nielsen RG, Markoew S, Kruse-Andersen S, Husby S. Reproducibility of 24-Hour Combined Multiple Intraluminal Impedance (MII) and pH Measurements in Infants and Children: Evaluation of a Diagnostic Procedure for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Dig Dis Sci 2007;52:2159–2165.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Peter CS, Sprodowski N, Ahlborn V, Wiechers C, Schlaud M, Silny J, Poets CF. Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement for Gastroesophageal Reflux Detection in Infants Using Multiple Intraluminal Impedance. Biol Neonate 2004;85:11–14.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Ravi K, DeVault KR, Murray JA, Bouras EP, Francis DL. Inter-observer agreement for multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH testing. Dis Esophagus 2010;23:540–544.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Jobe BA, Richter JE, Hoppo T, Peters JH, Bell R, Dengler WC, DeVault K, Fass R, Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Lacy BE, Pandolfino JE, Patti MG, Swanstrom LL, Kurian AA, Vela MF, Vaezi M, DeMeester TR. Preoperative Diagnostic Workup before Antireflux Surgery: An Evidence and Experience-Based Consensus of the Esophageal Diagnostic Advisory Panel. J Am Coll Surg 2013;217:586–597.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
More Art than Science: Impedance Analysis Prone to Interpretation Error
Authors
Thomas Ciecierega
Benjamin L. Gordon
Anna Aronova
Carl V. Crawford
Rasa Zarnegar
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-2809-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 6/2015 Go to the issue

Original Article

Redo Surgery After Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection for Chronic Pancreatitis: High Incidence in Long-Term Follow-up

Original Article

Normalization of CEA Levels Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy is a Strong Predictor of Pathologic Complete Response in Rectal Cancer

Review Article

Ex Vivo Resection of Hepatic Neoplasia and Autotransplantation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Original Article

Impact of Anatomic Location on Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Superior Outcome for Intraluminal Tumour Recurrence

Original Article

Xanthogranulomatous Cholecystitis in the Laparoscopic Era Is Still a Challenging Disease

Letter to the Editor

Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Long-Term Outcomes After Resection of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma