Intragastric pH monitoring

D. M. Driscoll, W. G. Cioffi, N. C. Molter, W. F. McManus, A. D. Mason, Basil A Pruitt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Buffering of intragastric pH is an accepted treatment modality for prophylaxis against the development of gastric stress ulcers. This method of prophylaxis is commonly based on the pH value acquired by measurement of gastric aspirate. Recent literature suggests pH measurement techniques that involve gastric aspirate specimens have many flaws. The purpose of this study was to compare gastric pH measurements with the use of a nasogastric sensor, meter system, and pH-sensitive test paper. Fifteen hundred paired serial measurements of intragastric pH were obtained on 19 thermally injured patients (16 men and three women, ages 23 to 79 years, total body surface area burn 25% to 80%). A double-lumen tube containing an antimony/graphite pH sensor incorporated into the tip of the tube was inserted with the use of a standard technique. Each tube was in place an average of 5.7 days (range 1 to 15 days). Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group (six patients) received non-acid-buffering prophylaxis therapy. The second group (13 patients) received standard antacid or antacid/H2 histamine-blocking agent combination prophylaxis therapy. Analysis of the 539 paired measurements for the non-acid-buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.532. The 961 measurements from the group receiving gastric acid buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.569. Paired t test values for the sample showed a significant difference (18.52, p < 0.0000) between measurement techniques.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)517-524
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1993
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Stomach
Antacids
Histamine Agents
Antimony
Graphite
Body Surface Area
Gastric Acid
Stomach Ulcer
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Surgery
  • Nursing(all)
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Driscoll, D. M., Cioffi, W. G., Molter, N. C., McManus, W. F., Mason, A. D., & Pruitt, B. A. (1993). Intragastric pH monitoring. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, 14(5), 517-524. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199309000-00005

Intragastric pH monitoring. / Driscoll, D. M.; Cioffi, W. G.; Molter, N. C.; McManus, W. F.; Mason, A. D.; Pruitt, Basil A.

In: Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1993, p. 517-524.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Driscoll, DM, Cioffi, WG, Molter, NC, McManus, WF, Mason, AD & Pruitt, BA 1993, 'Intragastric pH monitoring', Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 517-524. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199309000-00005
Driscoll DM, Cioffi WG, Molter NC, McManus WF, Mason AD, Pruitt BA. Intragastric pH monitoring. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation. 1993;14(5):517-524. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199309000-00005
Driscoll, D. M. ; Cioffi, W. G. ; Molter, N. C. ; McManus, W. F. ; Mason, A. D. ; Pruitt, Basil A. / Intragastric pH monitoring. In: Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation. 1993 ; Vol. 14, No. 5. pp. 517-524.
@article{33d12db178b24ae18bf3b692111e5a15,
title = "Intragastric pH monitoring",
abstract = "Buffering of intragastric pH is an accepted treatment modality for prophylaxis against the development of gastric stress ulcers. This method of prophylaxis is commonly based on the pH value acquired by measurement of gastric aspirate. Recent literature suggests pH measurement techniques that involve gastric aspirate specimens have many flaws. The purpose of this study was to compare gastric pH measurements with the use of a nasogastric sensor, meter system, and pH-sensitive test paper. Fifteen hundred paired serial measurements of intragastric pH were obtained on 19 thermally injured patients (16 men and three women, ages 23 to 79 years, total body surface area burn 25{\%} to 80{\%}). A double-lumen tube containing an antimony/graphite pH sensor incorporated into the tip of the tube was inserted with the use of a standard technique. Each tube was in place an average of 5.7 days (range 1 to 15 days). Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group (six patients) received non-acid-buffering prophylaxis therapy. The second group (13 patients) received standard antacid or antacid/H2 histamine-blocking agent combination prophylaxis therapy. Analysis of the 539 paired measurements for the non-acid-buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.532. The 961 measurements from the group receiving gastric acid buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.569. Paired t test values for the sample showed a significant difference (18.52, p < 0.0000) between measurement techniques.",
author = "Driscoll, {D. M.} and Cioffi, {W. G.} and Molter, {N. C.} and McManus, {W. F.} and Mason, {A. D.} and Pruitt, {Basil A}",
year = "1993",
doi = "10.1097/00004630-199309000-00005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "517--524",
journal = "Journal of Burn Care and Research",
issn = "1559-047X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intragastric pH monitoring

AU - Driscoll, D. M.

AU - Cioffi, W. G.

AU - Molter, N. C.

AU - McManus, W. F.

AU - Mason, A. D.

AU - Pruitt, Basil A

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - Buffering of intragastric pH is an accepted treatment modality for prophylaxis against the development of gastric stress ulcers. This method of prophylaxis is commonly based on the pH value acquired by measurement of gastric aspirate. Recent literature suggests pH measurement techniques that involve gastric aspirate specimens have many flaws. The purpose of this study was to compare gastric pH measurements with the use of a nasogastric sensor, meter system, and pH-sensitive test paper. Fifteen hundred paired serial measurements of intragastric pH were obtained on 19 thermally injured patients (16 men and three women, ages 23 to 79 years, total body surface area burn 25% to 80%). A double-lumen tube containing an antimony/graphite pH sensor incorporated into the tip of the tube was inserted with the use of a standard technique. Each tube was in place an average of 5.7 days (range 1 to 15 days). Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group (six patients) received non-acid-buffering prophylaxis therapy. The second group (13 patients) received standard antacid or antacid/H2 histamine-blocking agent combination prophylaxis therapy. Analysis of the 539 paired measurements for the non-acid-buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.532. The 961 measurements from the group receiving gastric acid buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.569. Paired t test values for the sample showed a significant difference (18.52, p < 0.0000) between measurement techniques.

AB - Buffering of intragastric pH is an accepted treatment modality for prophylaxis against the development of gastric stress ulcers. This method of prophylaxis is commonly based on the pH value acquired by measurement of gastric aspirate. Recent literature suggests pH measurement techniques that involve gastric aspirate specimens have many flaws. The purpose of this study was to compare gastric pH measurements with the use of a nasogastric sensor, meter system, and pH-sensitive test paper. Fifteen hundred paired serial measurements of intragastric pH were obtained on 19 thermally injured patients (16 men and three women, ages 23 to 79 years, total body surface area burn 25% to 80%). A double-lumen tube containing an antimony/graphite pH sensor incorporated into the tip of the tube was inserted with the use of a standard technique. Each tube was in place an average of 5.7 days (range 1 to 15 days). Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group (six patients) received non-acid-buffering prophylaxis therapy. The second group (13 patients) received standard antacid or antacid/H2 histamine-blocking agent combination prophylaxis therapy. Analysis of the 539 paired measurements for the non-acid-buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.532. The 961 measurements from the group receiving gastric acid buffering revealed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.569. Paired t test values for the sample showed a significant difference (18.52, p < 0.0000) between measurement techniques.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027380452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027380452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004630-199309000-00005

DO - 10.1097/00004630-199309000-00005

M3 - Article

C2 - 8245105

AN - SCOPUS:0027380452

VL - 14

SP - 517

EP - 524

JO - Journal of Burn Care and Research

JF - Journal of Burn Care and Research

SN - 1559-047X

IS - 5

ER -