PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The utilisation of pH level measurements from gastric contents may indicate the preferred tip position of a nasogastric tube or monitor the efficacy of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. We aimed to determine the accuracy of pH strip (pHS) tests and pH liquid (pHL) tests compared with the standard pH meter (pHM).
METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study.
METHODS: Gastric contents from medically critically ill patients.
METHODS: In total, 113 gastric samples were collected from 27 critically ill patients.
METHODS: The level of pH measured by pHM, pHS and pHL.
RESULTS: The pH values measured by pHM, pHS and pHL were 5.83 (IQR 5.12-6.61), 5.50 (IQR 5.00-6.00) and 5.75 (IQR 5.25-6.25), respectively. The pHS test showed greater accuracy, exhibiting a more positive correlation with the standard pHM measurement than the pHL test, with Y=0.95*X+0.56; rho=0.91, p<0.001, and Y=1.09*X - 0.72; rho=0.75, p<0.001, respectively. However, the pHS test demonstrated less agreement with the pHM than the pHL test, with biases of -0.27 versus 0.18, respectively. Noticeably, a slight variation in pHL from the standard pH values was found when we measured gastric contents with a pH lower than 5.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the pHS and pHL methods were good options for measuring gastric pH in critically ill patients. However, it was advisable to find alternative approaches to the pHL testing method when anticipated gastric acidity levels fall below 5.
BACKGROUND: TCTR20220530004.
METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study.
METHODS: Gastric contents from medically critically ill patients.
METHODS: In total, 113 gastric samples were collected from 27 critically ill patients.
METHODS: The level of pH measured by pHM, pHS and pHL.
RESULTS: The pH values measured by pHM, pHS and pHL were 5.83 (IQR 5.12-6.61), 5.50 (IQR 5.00-6.00) and 5.75 (IQR 5.25-6.25), respectively. The pHS test showed greater accuracy, exhibiting a more positive correlation with the standard pHM measurement than the pHL test, with Y=0.95*X+0.56; rho=0.91, p<0.001, and Y=1.09*X - 0.72; rho=0.75, p<0.001, respectively. However, the pHS test demonstrated less agreement with the pHM than the pHL test, with biases of -0.27 versus 0.18, respectively. Noticeably, a slight variation in pHL from the standard pH values was found when we measured gastric contents with a pH lower than 5.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the pHS and pHL methods were good options for measuring gastric pH in critically ill patients. However, it was advisable to find alternative approaches to the pHL testing method when anticipated gastric acidity levels fall below 5.
BACKGROUND: TCTR20220530004.
摘要：
目的：使用胃内容物的pH值测量值可以指示鼻胃管的首选尖端位置或监测危重患者预防应激性溃疡的功效。我们旨在确定与标准pH计（pHM）相比，pH条（pHS）测试和pH液体（pHL）测试的准确性。
方法：诊断准确性研究。
方法：医学危重患者的胃内容物。
方法：总共，从27例重症患者中收集了113例胃样本。
方法：通过pHM测量的pH水平，pHS和pHL。
结果：用pHM测得的pH值，pHS和pHL为5.83（IQR5.12-6.61），5.50（IQR5.00-6.00）和5.75（IQR5.25-6.25），分别。pHS测试显示出更高的准确性，与标准pHM测量比pHL测试表现出更正的相关性，Y=0.95*X+0.56;rho=0.91,p<0.001,Y=1.09*X-0.72;rho=0.75,p<0.001。然而,与pHL测试相比，pHS测试与pHM的一致性较小，偏差分别为-0.27和0.18。值得注意的是，当我们测量pH低于5的胃内容物时，发现pHL与标准pH值略有差异。
结论：pHS和pHL方法都是测量危重患者胃pH值的良好选择。然而,当预期的胃酸度低于5时，建议寻找pHL测试方法的替代方法。
背景：TCTR20220530004.
方法：诊断准确性研究。
方法：医学危重患者的胃内容物。
方法：总共，从27例重症患者中收集了113例胃样本。
方法：通过pHM测量的pH水平，pHS和pHL。
结果：用pHM测得的pH值，pHS和pHL为5.83（IQR5.12-6.61），5.50（IQR5.00-6.00）和5.75（IQR5.25-6.25），分别。pHS测试显示出更高的准确性，与标准pHM测量比pHL测试表现出更正的相关性，Y=0.95*X+0.56;rho=0.91,p<0.001,Y=1.09*X-0.72;rho=0.75,p<0.001。然而,与pHL测试相比，pHS测试与pHM的一致性较小，偏差分别为-0.27和0.18。值得注意的是，当我们测量pH低于5的胃内容物时，发现pHL与标准pH值略有差异。
结论：pHS和pHL方法都是测量危重患者胃pH值的良好选择。然而,当预期的胃酸度低于5时，建议寻找pHL测试方法的替代方法。
背景：TCTR20220530004.
