Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2016

04.11.2015

BRAVO esophageal pH monitoring: more cost-effective than empiric medical therapy for suspected gastroesophageal reflux

verfasst von: Cheguevara Afaneh, Veronica Zoghbi, Brendan M. Finnerty, Anna Aronova, David Kleiman, Thomas Ciecierega, Carl Crawford, Thomas J. Fahey III, Rasa Zarnegar

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 8/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Early referral for catheter-based esophageal pH monitoring is more cost-effective than empiric proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We hypothesize that BRAVO wireless pH monitoring will also demonstrate substantial cost-savings compared to empiric PPI therapy, given its superior sensitivity and comfort.

Methods

We reviewed 100 consecutive patients who underwent wireless pH monitoring for suspected GERD at our institution. A cost model and a cost equivalence calculation were generated. Cost-saving analyses were performed for both esophageal and extraesophageal symptoms.

Results

Eighty-seven patients were available for analysis. Median PPI use prior to referral was 215 weeks (range 0–520). Forty-three patients (49 %) had BRAVO results diagnosing GERD; 98 % of these had esophageal symptoms. Patients with negative BRAVO studies had a median of 113 (0–520) weeks of unnecessary PPI therapy. Cost-savings ranged from $1048 to $15,853 per patient, depending on sensitivity (75–95 %), PPI dosage, and brand. Maximum cost-savings occurred in patients with extraesophageal symptoms ($2948–$31,389 per patient). The PPI cost equivalence of BRAVO placement was 36 and 6 weeks for low- and high-dose therapy, respectively.

Conclusions

BRAVO wireless pH testing is more cost-effective than prolonged empiric medical management for GERD and should be incorporated early in the treatment algorithm.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, Dent J (2014) Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 63:871–880CrossRefPubMed El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, Dent J (2014) Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 63:871–880CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Rubenstein JH, Chen JW (2014) Epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 43:1–14CrossRefPubMed Rubenstein JH, Chen JW (2014) Epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 43:1–14CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Sandler RS, Everhart JE, Donowitz M, Adams E, Cronin K, Goodman C, Gemmen E, Shah S, Avdic A, Rubin R (2002) The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology 122:1500–1511CrossRefPubMed Sandler RS, Everhart JE, Donowitz M, Adams E, Cronin K, Goodman C, Gemmen E, Shah S, Avdic A, Rubin R (2002) The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology 122:1500–1511CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ, Gangarosa LM, Thiny MT, Stizenberg K, Morgan DR et al (2012) Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology 143:1179–1187.e1-e3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ, Gangarosa LM, Thiny MT, Stizenberg K, Morgan DR et al (2012) Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology 143:1179–1187.e1-e3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Everhart JE, Ruhl CE (2009) Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part I: overall and upper gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroneterology 136:376–386CrossRef Everhart JE, Ruhl CE (2009) Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part I: overall and upper gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroneterology 136:376–386CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF et al (2008) American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 135:1383–1391CrossRefPubMed Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF et al (2008) American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 135:1383–1391CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF (2013) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 108:308–328CrossRefPubMed Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF (2013) Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 108:308–328CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Kleiman DA, Beninato T, Bosworth BP, Brunaud L, Ciecierega T, Crawford CV Jr, Turner BG, Fahey TJ 3rd, Zarnegar R (2014) Early referral for esophageal pH monitoring is more cost-effective than prolonged empiric trials of proton-pump inhibitors for suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg 18:26–33CrossRefPubMed Kleiman DA, Beninato T, Bosworth BP, Brunaud L, Ciecierega T, Crawford CV Jr, Turner BG, Fahey TJ 3rd, Zarnegar R (2014) Early referral for esophageal pH monitoring is more cost-effective than prolonged empiric trials of proton-pump inhibitors for suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg 18:26–33CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Roman S, Mion F, Zerbib F, Benamouziq R, Letard JC, Bruley des Varannes S (2012) Wireless pH capsule—yield in clinical practice. Endoscopy 44:270–276CrossRefPubMed Roman S, Mion F, Zerbib F, Benamouziq R, Letard JC, Bruley des Varannes S (2012) Wireless pH capsule—yield in clinical practice. Endoscopy 44:270–276CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Pandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, Guardino JM, Chapman J, Kahrilas PJ (2013) Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol 98:740–749CrossRef Pandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, Guardino JM, Chapman J, Kahrilas PJ (2013) Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol 98:740–749CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Bhat YM, McGrath KM, Bielefeldt K (2006) Wireless esophageal pH monitoring: new techniques means new questions. J Clin Gastroenterol 40:116–121CrossRefPubMed Bhat YM, McGrath KM, Bielefeldt K (2006) Wireless esophageal pH monitoring: new techniques means new questions. J Clin Gastroenterol 40:116–121CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Iqbal A, Lee YK, Vitamvas M, Oleynikov D (2007) 48-hour pH monitoring increases the risk of false positive studies when the capsule is prematurely passed. J Gastrointest Surg 11:638–641CrossRefPubMed Iqbal A, Lee YK, Vitamvas M, Oleynikov D (2007) 48-hour pH monitoring increases the risk of false positive studies when the capsule is prematurely passed. J Gastrointest Surg 11:638–641CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong WM, Bautista J, Dekel R, Malagon IB, Tuchinsky I, Green C, Dickman R, Esquivel R, Fass R (2005) Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring—a randomized trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 21:155–163CrossRefPubMed Wong WM, Bautista J, Dekel R, Malagon IB, Tuchinsky I, Green C, Dickman R, Esquivel R, Fass R (2005) Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring—a randomized trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 21:155–163CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Schneider JH, Kramer KM, Konigsrainer A, Granderath FA (2007) Ambulatory pH: monitoring with a wireless system. Surg Endosc 21:2076–2080CrossRefPubMed Schneider JH, Kramer KM, Konigsrainer A, Granderath FA (2007) Ambulatory pH: monitoring with a wireless system. Surg Endosc 21:2076–2080CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, Oberg S (2007) Wireless esophageal pH monitoring is better tolerated than the catheter-based technique: results from a randomized cross-over trial. Am J Gastroenterol 102:239–245CrossRefPubMed Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, Oberg S (2007) Wireless esophageal pH monitoring is better tolerated than the catheter-based technique: results from a randomized cross-over trial. Am J Gastroenterol 102:239–245CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee J, Anggiansah A, Anggiansah R, Young A, Wong T, Fox M (2007) Effects of age on the gastroesophageal junction, esophageal motility, and reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:1392–1398CrossRefPubMed Lee J, Anggiansah A, Anggiansah R, Young A, Wong T, Fox M (2007) Effects of age on the gastroesophageal junction, esophageal motility, and reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:1392–1398CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Sweis R, Fox M, Anggiansah R, Anggiansah A, Basavaraju K, Canavan R, Wong T (2009) Patient acceptance and clinical impact of Bravo monitoring in patients with previous catheter-based studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 29:669–676CrossRefPubMed Sweis R, Fox M, Anggiansah R, Anggiansah A, Basavaraju K, Canavan R, Wong T (2009) Patient acceptance and clinical impact of Bravo monitoring in patients with previous catheter-based studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 29:669–676CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Pandolfino JE, Schreiner MA, Lee TJ, Zhang Q, Boniquit C, Kahrilas PJ (2005) Comparison of the Bravo wireless and Digitrapper catheter-based pH monitoring systems for measuring esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol 100:1466–1476CrossRefPubMed Pandolfino JE, Schreiner MA, Lee TJ, Zhang Q, Boniquit C, Kahrilas PJ (2005) Comparison of the Bravo wireless and Digitrapper catheter-based pH monitoring systems for measuring esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol 100:1466–1476CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat des Varannes SB, Mion F, Ducrotte P, Zerbib F, Denis P, Ponchon T, Thibault R, Galmiche JP (2005) Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo). Gut 54:1682–1686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral des Varannes SB, Mion F, Ducrotte P, Zerbib F, Denis P, Ponchon T, Thibault R, Galmiche JP (2005) Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo). Gut 54:1682–1686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Pandolfino JE, Zhang Q, Schreiner MA, Ghosh S, Roth MP, Kahrilas PJ (2005) Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different? Gut 54:1687–1692CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pandolfino JE, Zhang Q, Schreiner MA, Ghosh S, Roth MP, Kahrilas PJ (2005) Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different? Gut 54:1687–1692CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Sweis R, Fox M, Anggiansah A, Wong T (2011) Prolonged, wireless pH-studies have a high diagnostic yield in patients with reflux symptoms and negative 24-h catheter-based pH-studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil 23:419–426CrossRefPubMed Sweis R, Fox M, Anggiansah A, Wong T (2011) Prolonged, wireless pH-studies have a high diagnostic yield in patients with reflux symptoms and negative 24-h catheter-based pH-studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil 23:419–426CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Costamagna G, Marchese M (2010) Management of esophageal perforation after therapeutic endoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 6:391–392 Costamagna G, Marchese M (2010) Management of esophageal perforation after therapeutic endoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 6:391–392
Metadaten
Titel
BRAVO esophageal pH monitoring: more cost-effective than empiric medical therapy for suspected gastroesophageal reflux
verfasst von
Cheguevara Afaneh
Veronica Zoghbi
Brendan M. Finnerty
Anna Aronova
David Kleiman
Thomas Ciecierega
Carl Crawford
Thomas J. Fahey III
Rasa Zarnegar
Publikationsdatum
04.11.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4629-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.