Normal ranges of continuous pH monitoring in the proximal esophagus.

BACKGROUND: To determine normal ranges of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in the proximal esophagus, measured with continuous pH monitoring. Normal ranges in the distal esophagus have been published. Because esophageal pH monitoring is frequently performed in children with atypical manifestations such as chronic respiratory disease, and because one of the possible pathophysiologic mechanisms may be (micro-)aspiration, it may be relevant to establish normal ranges in the proximal esophagus. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring was performed in 200 children with suspected GER disease. The mean age of the patients was 4.5 months (range, 0.5-17.0 months). After initial analysis, patients were divided into three groups according to the reflux index (RI) in the distal esophagus, because it could be speculated that the amount of reflux reaching the proximal esophagus depends on the amount of reflux in the distal esophagus: Group I (n: 120) children had a distal RI of less than 5% and were considered normal, group II (n:50) had a distal RI of 5% to 10% and was considered to have intermediate disease, and group III (n:30) had a distal RI of more than 10% and was regarded as pathologic. The following parameters are calculated: the RI, the total number of reflux episodes, the number of reflux episodes lasting more than 5 minutes, the duration of the longest reflux episode, and the acid clearance time (ACT). RESULTS: The median RI in the distal esophagus was 3.8 +/- 0.34 (standard error of the mean [SEM]), and in the proximal esophagus, the RI was 1.2 +/- 0.23. In group I patients, the RI in the proximal esophagus was 0.5% +/- 0.09%, in group II the RI increased significantly to 2.75% +/- 0.34% (P [group I compared with group II] < 0.01), and in group III the RI was 6.15% +/- 0.96% (P [II-III] < 0.01). The number of acid reflux episodes in group I was 17.0 +/- 2.27, in group II the number increased to 62.5 +/- 8.18 (P [I-II] < 0.01), and in group III it reached 102.0 +/- 23.9 (P [II-III] < 0.05). Also the duration of the longest reflux episodes and the number of reflux episodes lasting more than 5 minutes increased from group I to group II, and from group II to group III. The ACT was shorter in the proximal esophagus (group I 0.3 +/- 0.06 minutes; group II 0.48 +/- 0.07 minutes, P [I-II] = not significant [NS]; group III 0.56 +/- 0.17 minutes P [II-III] = NS) than in the distal esophagus (group I 0.49 +/- 0.03 minutes, P [proximal ACT compared with distal ACT] < 0.05; Group II 0.76 +/- 0.05 minutes, P [proximal-distal] < 0.01; Group III 0.89 +/- 0.09 minutes, P [proximal-distal] = NS) suggesting more effective esophageal clearance in the proximal esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: Protection of the proximal esophagus from acid reflux is significantly related to the incidence and duration of reflux measured in the distal esophagus. These normal ranges in the upper esophagus will be helpful in the interpretation of upper esophageal pH monitoring data.

Sleep apnoea in babies born after in vitro fertilization.

UNLABELLED: Babies born after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are increasing in number, and, although these babies are considered as very precious, no data are available regarding their risk for sudden infant death or apnoea. To evaluate the respiratory maturity of IVF babies, we evaluated the incidence of apnoea during an 8-h polysomnography in 50 consecutively presented IVF babies and in a group of 50 unselected naturally conceived babies. All infants were in good health and matched for term (born > 38 weeks of gestation), birth weight, sex and age at the time of investigation (6-11 weeks post term, median 8.0). There were 24 twins in the IVF and 6 twins in the control group. The incidence of obstructive and isolated central apnoea was comparable in the IVF and control group. However, IVF babies had significantly more periodic breathing episodes than control babies (median 2.30 (range 0-15.30) in IVF, and 1.02 (range 0-11.2) in control babies; P < 0.01). This difference was not related to the higher number of twins in the IVF group. Single IVF babies had significantly more short central apnoeas (5-10 s) than IVF twins (5-10 s) (mean 38.80 +/- 18.63 and 22.33 +/- 13.35; P < 0.001). This difference between single and twin babies was not found in the control group. CONCLUSION: IVF babies have more periodic breathing episodes indicating an immature respiratory pattern than normally conceived babies.

Dehydrobenzperidol as peroperative anti-emetic: most effective administration time.

206 female patients undergoing curettage or laparoscopy were randomized in 4 comparable groups. Group 1 did not receive dehydrobenzperidol (DHBP), group 2 was given DHBP during premedication, group 3 during induction of anesthesia and group 4 when patients presented symptoms of nausea and/or vomiting. Again, the statistical results confirm the strongly anti-emetic effects of DHBP. Because of the existing trend towards a more beneficial effect of DHBP if given during induction and the avoidance of a possible adverse reaction, administration during induction is to be preferred, at least in non-ambulatory patients.

Can inhaled anesthetics influence the breath analyser Alcotest?

An in vitro study was made to verify whether anesthetic vapours, exhaled after anesthesia can influence the breath analyser test used in Belgium by the prosecuting authorities. Of the exhaled anesthetic vapours halothane, enflurane, methoxyflurane and diethyl ether, only diethyl ether will be able to produce a positive breath test.

Music while you wait. Patient acceptance of music in the preanesthetic period.

A series of 184 premedicated patients were studied to determine whether music could make the immediate waiting period before surgery more comfortable. Selected music at a known noise level was being played by a tape recorder in a waiting room with open doors within the operating department. After the operation patients were asked about their impressions. A favourable result was obtained in 96.8% of the patients, i.e. 52.2% positively satisfied, 22.3% neutral and 22.3% not noticing the music. The negative impressions were mostly emotional or perhaps due to an adverse reaction to a premedication constituent: dehydrobenzperidol. The authors recommend the use of music while you wait for surgery. (Acta anaesth. belg., 1980, 31, 61-67).