Adding impedance to pH monitoring improves the diagnostic yield and allows better symptom analysis than pHmetry alone, mainly in patients on PPI therapy. The impact of this improved diagnostic value on gastroesophageal reflux disease management remains to be investigated by outcome studies.

SUMMARYBackground: Impedance-pH monitoring is the most sensitive method for detection and characterization of gastro-oesophageal reflux episodes. Normal values from European subjects are lacking. Aim: To build a database of gastro-oesophageal reflux patterns from French and Belgian healthy subjects. Methods: Seventy-two healthy subjects (35 men, mean age 35 years, 18-72) underwent 24-h ambulatory impedance-pH studies. Gastro-oesophageal reflux episodes were detected using impedance and characterized by pH as acid, weakly acidic, or weakly alkaline. Analysis was performed visually and effects of age, gender and intra-individual reproducibility were evaluated. Results: The total number of gastro-oesophageal reflux episodes was 44 (25,58,75) of which 59% were acid,

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02595853).

No abstract

Oesophageal pH-impedance monitoring allows detection of acid and non-acid gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) events. Visual analysis of impedance recording requires expertise. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of an automated analysis for GOR assessment. Seventy-three patients with suspected GORD underwent 24-h oesophageal pH-impedance monitoring. Recordings analysis was performed visually (V) and automatically using Autoscan function (AS) of Bioview software. A symptom index (SI) > or =50% was considered for a significant association between symptoms and reflux events. AS analysis detected more reflux events, especially non-acid, liquid, pure gas and proximal events. Detection of oesophageal acid exposure and acid reflux events was similar with both analyses. Agreement between V and AS analysis was good (Kendall's coefficient W > 0.750, P < 0.01) for all parameters. During pH-impedance studies, 65 patients reported symptoms. As compared to visual analysis, the sensitivity and specificity of a positive SI determined by AS were respectively 85.7% and 80% for all reflux events, 100% and 98% for acid reflux and 33% and 87.5% for non-acid reflux. Despite good agreement with visual analysis, automatic analysis overestimates the number of non-acid reflux events. Visual analysis remains the gold standard to detect an association between symptoms and non-acid reflux events.

Background: The diagnosis of acute diverticulitis is mainly based on clinical, biological and computed tomography (CT)-scan findings. Elective colonoscopy is recommended after medical treatment, to rule out another diagnosis and to detect associated conditions; however, the relevance of this recommendation has been questioned. Patients and methods: Between January 2005 and December 2011, we retrospectively identified in three referral centers the consecutive patients whom underwent a colonoscopy after the medical treatment of a CT scan-proven acute diverticulitis episode. We excluded from the analysis patients with haematochezia or recent change in bowel habits. Sex and agematched asymptomatic patients undergoing a screening colonoscopy were chosen as a control group. We collected and compared the results of colonoscopy and histological findings in both groups. Results: We matched 404 patients whom underwent a colonoscopy after an episode of acute diverticulitis with 404 control patients. Their mean age was 60.9 years, with 59% being women. Colorectal adenoma, advanced adenoma and cancer detection rates in acute diverticulitis patients were 12.1%, 2.7% and 0.25%, respectively; versus 14.6% (p ¼ 0.35), 6.7% (p ¼ 0.01) and 0.25% respectively, in control patients. Conclusions: Diagnosis rates for adenomas and for colorectal cancer during a colonoscopy scheduled after acute diverticulitis were similar than those of control patients undergoing a screening colonoscopy, while the detection rate of advanced adenomas was lower. We suggest that colonoscopy should be indicated only in selected patients, i.e. those presenting with reasonable doubt on initial CT-scan, those with alarm symptoms, and those with identified risk factors for colorectal cancer.

No abstract

No abstract