Skip to main content
World Journal of Gastroenterology logoLink to World Journal of Gastroenterology
. 2001 Oct 15;7(5):695–697. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v7.i5.695

Gastroesophageal manometry and 24-hour double pH monitoring in neonates with birth asphyxia

Mei Sun 1,2, Wei-Lin Wang 1,2, Wei Wang 1,2, De-Liang Wen 1,2, Hui Zhang 1,2, Yu-Kun Han 1,2
PMCID: PMC4695576  PMID: 11819856

INTRODUCTION

Birth asphyxia may lead to disturbances of gastroenteric motility of newborn infants[1,2]. The change of gut pressure and reflux are the major manifestations of the motor disturbance[3-9]. To evaluate the effects of perinatal asphyxia on the gastroenteric motility, gastric and esophageal pressure and double pH were measured in a group of asphyxiated newborns. And, their pathophysiological and anatomical effects on gastroenteric function were discussed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

The neonates admitted to our neonatal intension care unit of the Second Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University from August 1995 to March 1996 were studied. The criterion for asphyxia: Apgar score at birth (1 min) ≤ 7, accompanied with hypoxia, acidosis and other organ damage caused by asphyxia[10]. The asphyxia group consisted of 35 asphyxia neonates with a mean age of 3.3 d, gestational age 40 wk, and mean body weight of 3189 g. In the asphyxia group, there were 7 infants with severe asphyxia (1 min Apgar score ≤ 3). The control group included 17 normal infants, who were admitted for intensive care. These infants showed no symptoms of gastroenteric, neurological and respiratory diseases, with a mean age of 5.2 d, mean gestation age of 39.6 wk, and mean body weight of 3371 g. Two groups were fed with same formula. No prokinetic agent was administrated.

Gastric and esophageal manometry

Multiple channel physiological recorder (RMP-6018, Japan), TP-400 pressure transmitter and Au-601G automatic drawing device were used in this study. The manometry was performed after 3 h fasting. By the fluid transformation and synchronous device, the pressure within the stomach, lower esophageal sphincter (LESP), body of esophagus and upper esophageal sphincter were measured respectively and the difference between LESP and gastric pressure was calculated. The distance between the nasal cavity and the LES was calculated as well.

Double pH monitoring technique

Crystal antimony double pH microelectrode (diameter 2.1 mm, type 90-0011, Synectics Medical, Sweden) was used in this study. Before each monitoring, pH calibration was performed. The esophageal electrode was introduced to 2 cm above LES and the distal electrode was advanced 15 cm apart. The infants’ diet and activity were not limited during the test. The beginning and ending of each feeding, occurrence of vomiting and crying were written down. The pH signals were recorded during 24 h in a pocket pH meter. After that, the meter was connected with computer and the results were analyzed with a pH analysis software system (Esophogram 5.550 B3 improved edition, Gastrosoft Inc.).

Monitoring index

The indexes of acid gastroesophageal reflux (GER) (esophageal pH < 4): acid reflux index (RI) (percentage of total time pH < 4); number of reflux episodes; number of reflux episode > 5 min; duration of longest episode pH < 4 in minutes; total time of pH < 4 in minutes; the area under pH < 4 curve (pH × min); and esophageal clearance time (min/reflux). The indexes of alkaline duodenogastric reflux (gastric pH > 4): gastric alkaline index (AI): percentage of total time pH > 4; number of gastric alkaline episodes; number of gastric alkaline episode > 5 min; duration of longest episode pH > 4 in minutes; total time of pH > 4 in minutes; and the area under pH > 4 curve (pH × min).

Statistics

The data were expressed as mean ± SD. Inter-group comparison was performed with t test. The results were considered statistically significant if P value < 0.05.

RESULTS

Esophageal and gastric pressure

The gastric pressure of the study group was higher than that of control group (Table 1). The LESP, difference between LESP and gastric pressure, esophageal body pressure and UESP were lower than those of control group, but the differences were not significant (P > 0.05). The gastric pressure of severe asphyxia group was significantly lower than that of mild asphyxia group (P < 0.01).

Table 1.

Esophageal and gastric pressure in asphyxia infants (mean ± SD, kPa)

Groups n Gastric pressure LESP LESP-gastric pressure Esophageal pressure UESP
Asphyxia 35 0.89 ± 0.07 3.22 ± 0.14 2.33 ± 0.13 -0.33 ± 0.05 2.38 ± 0.13
Mild 28 0.99 ± 0.06 3.32 ± 0.15 2.31 ± 0.14 -0.34 ± 0.05 2.34 ± 0.15
Severe 7 0.49 ± 0.20b 2.90 ± 0.33 2.42 ± 0.36 -0.30 ± 0.09 2.55 ± 0.31
Control 17 0.86 ± 0.07 3.37 ± 0.29 2.47 ± 0.29 -0.38 ± 0.06 2.45 ± 0.22
b

P < 0.01, vs mild asphyxia group.

24-h esophageal pH monitoring

The GER parameters of asphyxia group were all higher than those of control group (Table 2). The parameters were also higher than the consulting pathological GER diagnosis standard for the age group of < 12 mo, i.e. reflux index > 5%, number of reflux episodes > 132, number of episodes over 5 min > 1, duration of longest episode of pH < 4 > 13 min, the area under pH < 4 curve > 51. This pH analysis system recommended a Boix-Ochoa value reflecting infant acid gastroesophageal reflux and a value less than 11.99 was considered normal statistically[11]. In our current study, the asphyxia group had an average value of 37.1 whereas 6.4 in the control group.

Table 2.

24-h esophageal pH monitoring in asphyxia (mean ± SD)

Groups n Acid reflux index Reflux episodes Episode > 5 min Duration of longest episode pH < 4 Total time pH < 4 Area under pH < 4 curve Esoph. clear time
Asphyxia 35 7.1 ± 1.3b 137 ± 24b 5.9 ± 1.1b 24.9 ± 8.0a 157 ± 32b 187 ± 62a 0.95 ± 0.12b
Mild 28 8.7 ± 1.5 167 ± 28 7.3 ± 1.3 30.3 ± 9.8 192 ± 37
Severe 7 0.8 ± 0.4d 19 ± 9d 0.9 ± 0.7d 3.4 ± 1.3c 19 ± 10d 17 ± 9d 0.76 ± 0.36
Control 17 1.3 ± 0.5 29 ± 11 0.7 ± 0.5 4.2 ± 1.7 20 ± 10
a

P < 0.05,

b

P < 0.01, vs control;

c

P < 0.05,

d

P < 0.01, vs mild asphyxia.

24-h gastric pH monitoring

The difference in the parameters between the asphyxia and control groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, Table 3) and with no sensible tendency.

Table 3.

24-h pH monitoring of stomach in asphyxia (mean ± SD)

Group n Gastric index Alkaline episodes Episode > 5 min Duration of longest episode pH > 4 Total time pH > 4 Area under pH > 4 curve
Asphyxia 35 21 ± 6 111 ± 17 10.1 ± 1.7 243 ± 59 554 ± 79 1132 ± 202
Mild 28 23 ± 7 124 ± 20 10.3 ± 1.8 234 ± 58 558 ± 83 1102 ± 188
Severe 7 15 ± 13 56 ± 24 9.3 ± 5.3 281 ± 196 539 ± 230 1252 ± 723
Control 17 20 ± 7 80 ± 17 8.7 ± 2.1 388 ± 96 802 ± 124 1769 ± 352

Double pH monitoring in infants with asphyxia of different degree

The acid GER in mild asphyxia group was more severe than that in severe asphyxia group (Table 2, Table 3). The gastric alkaline parameter was not significantly different between the asphyxia groups of different degree.

DISCUSSION

The pressure measurement of inside gut is a major index reflecting gastroenterol motility. LESP and UESP are important elements to resist GER[12]. Our results showed that gastric pressure in asphyxia group was higher than that of control, LESP, esophageal body pressure and UESP were all lower than those of control group. Though the differences were not significant, it does partly contribute the pathophysiological and anatomical bases for GER[13-16].

GER is a disorder of gastroenterol motility malfunction. Among many inspecting METHODS, continuous 24 h esophageal pH monitoring is regarded as “golden standard” to diagnose and manage GER[17-22]. This study introduced this technique to the digestive tract motility research of asphyxia newborn babies. The acid GER parameters derived from the normal control group were similar with a large sample study (92 cases of same age) done by Vandenplas et al[23] with the same technique, which suggests that this method has good stability, reliability and repetition[24].

In children with impaired central nervous system, there is a tendency of more occurrence of GER[25-29]. This is associated with the long-term supine position, uncoordinated or lack swallow movement, impaired function of esophageal movement, abnormal motility of gastric sinus or pylorus duodenum, increased abdominal pressure caused by swallowing too much air, convulsion and effects of some medicine. It has been observed in animal that slight increase of intracranial pressure can cause obvious decrease of LESP[26,27]. Prenatal asphyxia can easily cause temperate or permanent injury of central nervous system, it should be noted that prenatal asphyxia may play an important role in the mechanism of GER.

GER is not all pathological, so it has no feature of all-or-no. There are large laps between physiological and pathological GER[30]. Normal physiological GER occurs when a baby is in a standing position, or in a state of wakening and post meal, whereas the pathological GER occurs when the baby is in supine position, or during sleep and before meal[31]. In our study, the GER in asphyxia patients obviously belong to the pathological GER no matter using Boix-Ochoa Index or other diagnostic standards. So these patients can easily suffer from reflux, vomiting even without feeding, and complications[32-35] such as problems of nutrition and respiratory system.

There is few research of alkaline GER in neonates[36-39]. It is generally regarded that esophageal pH > 7 can be called alkaline GER. Because this value is near to the normal esophageal pH(5.0-6.8), the single esophageal pH monitoring can not give an accurate judgment about alkaline GER. But the gastroesophageal continuous double pH monitoring has resolved this problem[39]. It can help analyze the relevance of the changes of gastroesophageal pH and in the meantime it helps understand the pathological bases of the alkaline duodenal GER. However, the gastric alkaline parameter showed nosignificant difference between the asphyxia group and normal control, mild and severe asphyxia infants. Furthermore, there was no relevance with the esophageal alkaline reflux.

To our surprise, severe asphyxiated infants showed obviously decreased gastric pressure, slighter acid GER and lower gastric alkaline than that of their mild asphyxia cohort. Combining with the clinical symptoms of feeding difficulty, gastric retention, abdominal distension, and constipation in severe asphyxiated infants, this result suggested that after severe asphyxia, a phenomenon similar with “gastroparesis” in adults, developed in newborn infants due to the multiple factors such as inhibition of central nervous system[40,41] and ischemia-refilling injury.

Footnotes

Edited by Ma JY

Project supported by the Research Fund of the Ministry of Health of China, No.96-2-170 (1996)

References

  • 1.McCoy HH, Berseth CL. Perinatal asphyxia alters small intestinal motility in term infants. Pediatr Res. 1991;29:108 (A). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Berseth CL, McCoy HH. Birth asphyxia alters neonatal intestinal motility in term neonates. Pediatrics. 1992;90:669–673. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dong M, Wang ZF, Ke MY. The esophageal pH monitoring and the effect of prepulsid in premature infants with gastroesophageal reflux. Chin Natl J New Gastroenterol. 1996;2(Suppl 1):146. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Morriss FH. Neonatal gastrointestinal motility and enteral feeding. Semin Perinatol. 1991;15:478–481. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Morriss FH, Moore M, Gibson T, West MS. Motility of the small intestine in preterm infants who later have necrotizing enterocolitis. J Pediatr. 1990;117:S20–S23. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(05)81126-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Berseth CL. Effect of early feeding on maturation of the preterm infant's small intestine. J Pediatr. 1992;120:947–953. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(05)81969-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Berseth CL, Nordyke CK. Manometry can predict feeding readiness in preterm infants. Gastroenterology. 1992;103:1523–1528. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(92)91173-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Berseth CL, Nordyke CK, Valdes MG, Furlow BL, Go VL. Responses of gastrointestinal peptides and motor activity to milk and water feedings in preterm and term infants. Pediatr Res. 1992;31:587–590. doi: 10.1203/00006450-199206000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Koenig WJ, Amarnath RP, Hench V, Berseth CL. Manometrics for preterm and term infants: a new tool for old questions. Pediatrics. 1995;95:203–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fan SZ. The diagnosis, management for asphyxia neonatorum and its organ injury. Xiaoer Jijiu Yixue Zazhi. 1995;2:1–2. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Boix-Ochoa J, Lafuenta JM, Gil-Vernet JM. Twenty-four hour exophageal pH monitoring in gastroesophageal reflux. J Pediatr Surg. 1980;15:74–78. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(80)80407-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dent J, Holloway RH, Toouli J, Dodds WJ. Mechanisms of lower oesophageal sphincter incompetence in patients with symptomatic gastrooesophageal reflux. Gut. 1988;29:1020–1028. doi: 10.1136/gut.29.8.1020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Werlin SL, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, Arndorfer RC. Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in children. J Pediatr. 1980;97:244–249. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(80)80482-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kawahara H, Dent J, Davidson G. Mechanisms responsible for gastroesophageal reflux in children. Gastroenterology. 1997;113:399–408. doi: 10.1053/gast.1997.v113.pm9247456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Holloway RH, Dent J. Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux. Lower esophageal sphincter dysfunction in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 1990;19:517–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jiang MZ, Shen J, Ou BY, Chen XX, Wang J, Sun MY, Ye RY, Hong WL. Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in neonates. Zhonghua Erke Zazhi. 1997;35:420–423. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.No authors listed. A standardized protocol for the methodology of esophageal pH monitoring and interpretation of the data for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux. Working Group of the European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1992;14:467–471. doi: 10.1097/00005176-199205000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vandenplas Y, Derde MP, Piepsz A. Evaluation of reflux episodes during simultaneous esophageal pH monitoring and gastroesophageal reflux scintigraphy in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1992;14:256–260. doi: 10.1097/00005176-199204000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vandenplas Y. Esophageal pH monitoring: methodology, indication and interpretation. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 1991;1:67–72. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1042462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sutphen JL, Dillard VL. Effect of feeding volume on early postcibal gastroesophageal reflux in infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1988;7:185–188. doi: 10.1097/00005176-198803000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ariagno RL, Kikkert MA, Mirmiran M, Conrad C, Baldwin RB. Cisapride decreases gastroesophageal reflux in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2001;107:E58. doi: 10.1542/peds.107.4.e58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zheng J, Li JY, Zhang Y, Wang W, Liu RX. The diagnostic value of gastric pH monitoring and gastric emptying rate for detecting gastroesophageal reflux. Tianjin Yiyao. 1999;27:210–212. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Vandenplas Y, Sacré-Smits L. Continuous 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring in 285 asymptomatic infants 0-15 months old. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1987;6:220–224. doi: 10.1097/00005176-198703000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vandenplas Y, Helven R, Goyvaerts H, Sacré L. Reproducibility of continuous 24 hour oesophageal pH monitoring in infants and children. Gut. 1990;31:374–377. doi: 10.1136/gut.31.4.374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Maxson RT, Harp S, Jackson RJ, Smith SD, Wagner CW. Delayed gastric emptying in neurologically impaired children with gastroesophageal reflux: the role of pyloroplasty. J Pediatr Surg. 1994;29:726–729. doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(94)90355-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Halpern LM, Jolley SG, Johnson DG. Gastroesophageal reflux: a significant association with central nervous system disease in children. J Pediatr Surg. 1991;26:171–173. doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(91)90901-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shteyer E, Rothman E, Constantini S, Granot E. Gastroesophageal reflux in infants with hydrocephalus before and after ventriculo-peritoneal shunt operation. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1998;29:138–141. doi: 10.1159/000028708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ross MN, Haase GM, Reiley TT, Meagher DP. The importance of acid reflux patterns in neurologically damaged children detected by four-channel esophageal pH monitoring. J Pediatr Surg. 1988;23:573–576. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(88)80371-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pearl RH, Robie DK, Ein SH, Shandling B, Wesson DE, Superina R, Mctaggart K, Garcia VF, O'Connor JA, Filler RM. Complications of gastroesophageal antireflux surgery in neurologically impaired versus neurologically normal children. J Pediatr Surg. 1990;25:1169–1173. doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(90)90756-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vandenplas Y, Goyvaerts H, Helven R, Sacre L. Gastroesophageal reflux, as measured by 24-hour pH monitoring, in 509 healthy infants screened for risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatrics. 1991;88:834–840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Vandenplas Y, De Wolf D, Deneyer M, Sacre L. Incidence of gastroesophageal reflux in sleep, awake, fasted, and postcibal periods in asymptomatic and symptomatic infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1988;7:177–180. doi: 10.1097/00005176-198803000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chen PH, Chang MH, Hsu SC. Gastroesophageal reflux in children with chronic recurrent bronchopulmonary infection. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1991;13:16–22. doi: 10.1097/00005176-199107000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Krishnamoorthy M, Mintz A, Liem T, Applebaum H. Diagnosis and treatment of respiratory symptoms of initially unsuspected gastroesophageal reflux in infants. Am Surg. 1994;60:783–785. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jiang MZ, Ye RY, Ou BY. 24 hour ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring of gastroesophageal reflux in children. Chin Natl J New Gastroenterol. 1996;2(Suppl 1):122–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Arad-Cohen N, Cohen A, Tirosh E. The relationship between gastroesophageal reflux and apnea in infants. J Pediatr. 2000;137:321–326. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2000.107847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Malthaner RA, Newman KD, Parry R, Duffy LF, Randolph JG. Alkaline gastroesophageal reflux in infants and children. J Pediatr Surg. 1991;26:986–90; discussion 990-1. doi: 10.1016/0022-3468(91)90848-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Vandenplas Y, Loeb H. Alkaline gastroesophageal reflux in infancy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1991;12:448–452. doi: 10.1097/00005176-199105000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mouterde O, Foucaud P, Vatier J, Dupont C, Navarro J. Duodenogastric reflux in children: measurement of phospholipids and trypsin in gastric content. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1990;10:327–334. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wang W, Ji S, Wang H, Wang W. 24-hour gastroesophageal double pH monitoring acid and alkaline gastroesophageal and duodenogastric refluxes in pediatric patients. Chin Med J ( Engl) 1998;111:881–884. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Morriss FH, Moore M, Weisbrodt NW, West MS. Ontogenic development of gastrointestinal motility: IV. Duodenal contractions in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 1986;78:1106–1113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ravelli AM. Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to vomiting and gastroparesis in children with neurological and neuromuscular handicap. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1997;25 Suppl 1:S34–S36. doi: 10.1097/00005176-199700002-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from World Journal of Gastroenterology are provided here courtesy of Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

RESOURCES