Background: Recommended Bravo™ capsule placement is 6 cm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction. This is because the junction resides 1 cm distal to the lower esophageal sphincter. Aim: To determine the positional accuracy of capsule placement compared with the ideal location in symptomatic patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive symptomatic outpatients undergoing both capsule placement and esophageal manometry on the same day. Error in capsule placement (ECP) was calculated as the actual capsule position (ACP) minus the ideal capsule position (ICP) based on manometry results. An error in positioning ≤3 cm was deemed an accurate placement. Results: Accurate placement of the capsule occurred in 91/147 (62%) patients. In patients with inaccurate placement, 92.9% were placed >3 cm proximal to the ICP. Only longer esophageal length correlated with the severity of proximal misplacement. There was no relationship between severity of ECP and whether the study demonstrated acid reflux. Conclusions: Our results suggest that endoscopic misplacement of Bravo capsules is common. Capsule misplacement proximally occurred far more frequently than distal misplacement. Capsule misplacement was not associated with pH study results.

Journal Section:
Original Paper
Keywords:
Wireless pH capsule, Manometry, Squamocolumnar junction, Lower esophageal sphincter
1.
Ward EM, Devault KR, Bouras EP, et al: Successful oesophageal pH monitoring with a catheter-free system. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19:449–454.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2036.2004.01868.x
2.
Pandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, et al: Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:740–749.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.2003.07398.x
3.
Fox M: Bravo wireless versus catheter pH monitoring systems. Gut 2006;55:434–435.
[PubMed]
4.
Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ: Prolonged pH monitoring: Bravo capsule. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2005;15:307–318.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.giec.2004.10.005
5.
Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, et al: Wireless esophageal pH monitoring is better tolerated than the catheter-based technique: results from a randomized cross-over trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:239–245.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.2006.00939.x
6.
Kahrilas PJ, Lin S, Chen J, et al: The effect of hiatus hernia on gastro-oesophageal junction pressure. Gut 1999;44:476–482.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fgut.44.4.476
7.
Csendes A, Maluenda F, Braghetto I, et al: Location of the lower oesophageal sphincter and the squamous columnar mucosal junction in 109 healthy controls and 778 patients with different degrees of endoscopic oesophagitis. Gut 1993;34:21–27.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fgut.34.1.21
8.
Pandolfino JE, Schreiner MA, Lee TJ, et al: Comparison of the Bravo wireless and digitrapper catheter-based pH monitoring systems for measuring esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:1466–1476.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.2005.41719.x
9.
Pandolfino JE: Bravo capsule pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:8–10.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.2005.41183.x
10.
Chotiprashidi P, Liu J, Carpenter S, et al: ASGE technology status evaluation report: wireless esophageal pH monitoring system. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:485–487.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.gie.2005.07.007
11.
Wenner J, Johansson J, Johnsson F, et al: Optimal thresholds and discriminatory power of 48-h wireless esophageal pH monitoring in the diagnosis of GERD. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1862–1869.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.2007.01269.x
12.
Richter JE, Bradley LA, DeMeester TR, et al: Normal 24-hour ambulatory esophageal pH values. influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender. Dig Dis Sci 1992;37:849–856.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01300382
13.
Lacy BE, O’Shana T, Hynes M, et al: Safety and tolerability of transoral Bravo capsule placement after transnasal manometry using a validated conversion factor. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:24–32.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.2006.00889.x
14.
Hirano I, Richter JE: Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. ACG practice guidelines: esophageal reflux testing. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:668–685.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1572-0241.2006.00936.x
15.
Wenner J, Johnsson F, Johansson J, et al: Wireless oesophageal pH monitoring: feasibility, safety and normal values in healthy subjects. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005;40:768–774.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00365520510023602
16.
Li Q, Castell JA, Castell DO: Manometric determination of esophageal length. Am J Gastroenterol 1994;89:722–725.
[PubMed]
17.
Friedland GW: Progress in radiology: historical review of the changing concepts of lower esophageal anatomy: 430 BC–1977. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1978;131:373–378.
[PubMed]
18.
Anggiansah A, Sumboonnanonda K, Wang J, et al: Significantly reduced acid detection at 10 centimeters compared to 5 centimeters above lower esophageal sphincter in patients with acid reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:842–846.
[PubMed]
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2010
You do not currently have access to this content.