• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Early Referral for 24-hour Esophageal Ph Monitoring May Prevent Unnecessary Treatment With Acid-reducing Therapy

Early Referral for 24-hour Esophageal Ph Monitoring May Prevent Unnecessary Treatment With Acid-reducing Therapy

David A Kleiman, MD, Matthew J Sporn, BS, Toni Beninato, MD, Thomas J Fahey, Iii, MD, Rasa Zarnegar, MD. New York Presbyterian Hospital – Weill Cornell Medical College

 

 INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) affects nearly 25% of adults, however an objective diagnosis is rarely established.  We hypothesized that delayed referral for 24-hour pH monitoring (current “gold-standard” for diagnosis) may result in lengthy courses of unnecessary acid-reducing therapy for select patients.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective chart review was performed of all 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring studies performed at our institution between 2004 and 2011. Patients whose medical records lacked adequate historical information were excluded. The records were reviewed for patient age, gender, type of GERD symptoms, and duration/response to prior acid-reducing medications. Patients were labeled “no GERD” if there was a low index of suspicion, “typical GERD” if descriptors such as regurgitation, “heartburn,” and dysphagia were reported, and “atypical GERD” if symptoms such as hoarseness, voice changes, post-nasal drip, or sinusitis were used. Patients were grouped by history of GERD and then also by response to acid-reducing therapy prior to testing. pH monitoring was considered diagnostic of pathological GERD if the DeMeester score was ≥14.7. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 12.0 (College Station, TX).                                                                                                

Negative 24-hour Esophageal pH Study DeMeester Score1 p-value2 Duration of prior acid-reducing therapy (years)1 p-value2
HISTORY OF GERD          
None (N=10) 60.0% 11.4 (0.3-57.5) 0.105 1.0 (0-2.0) 0.123
Typical (N=79) 35.4% 23.6 (0.3-207.4)   3.0 (0.1-20.0)  
Atypical (N=26) 73.1% 17.6 (1.4-94.8)   2.0 (0.3-25.0)  
RESPONSE TO ACID-REDUCING THERAPY          
None (N=43) 34.9% 18.8 (0.3-94.8) 0.826 1.3 (0.1-16.0) 0.012
Partial (N=28) 32.1% 20.4 (0.5-25.3)   3.5 (0.3-25.0)  
Complete (N=3) 0% 30.2 (24.0-38.3)   4.5 (1.0-8.0)  
Relapse (N=7) 42.9% 27.6 (0.5-57.1)   6.0 (3.0-20.0)  

                                                                                                                   

1Values not normally distributed reported as median (range), 2Kruskal-Wallis rank test.

RESULTS: 115 patients were included in this study. 68.7% of the patients had a history of typical GERD, 22.6% had a history of atypical GERD, and 8.7% had no history of GERD. Patients who tested positive for GERD on 24-hour pH monitoring were well-matched compared to those who tested negative except the positive group was significantly older than the negative group (52.5±15.1 years vs. 45.4±15.8, p=0.023). When grouped according to type of GERD history, there were no significant differences in the outcome of the test, DeMeester score, or duration of PPI use prior to testing (Table 1). When grouped according to response to anti-reflux therapy, there were no significant differences in DeMeester scores or test outcomes between the groups. However, there was a significant step-wise increase in duration of anti-reflux therapy prior to testing. Patients with no response to treatment were referred earliest and patients with an initial response but subsequent relapse of symptoms were referred the latest (median 1.3 years vs. 6.0 years, p=0.012) (Table 1). 42.9% of the patients who had a relapse of symptoms had no evidence of GERD on pH monitoring (Table 1).

CONCLUSION: Delayed referral for esophageal pH monitoring occasionally results in lengthy periods of unnecessary treatment with acid-reducing therapy with no therapeutic benefit. Early referral for 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring could potentially avoid unnecessary side effects and expenses for these patients.


Session Number: Poster – Poster Presentations
Program Number: P241
View Poster

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search