Search

Background: Gaviscon Infant (GI) has been recommended for gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) in infants. Its efficacy has not been examined with a physiologically appropriate denominator to define the degree of GOR., Aim: To investigate the influence of Gaviscon Infant on GOR in infants using combined pH and intraluminal impedance measurement., Methods: Twenty infants (mean age 163.5 days, range 34-319 days) exclusively bottle fed, with symptoms clinically suggestive of GOR, underwent 24 hour studies of intra-oesophageal 6 channel impedance and dual channel pH monitoring, during which six random administrations (3+3) of Gaviscon Infant (625 mg in 225 ml milk) or placebo (mannitol and Solvito N, 625 mg in 225 ml milk) were given in a double blind fashion. Impedance/pH reflux data were recorded and analysed blind by one observer., Results: The median number of reflux events/hour (1.58 v 1.68), acid reflux events/hour (0.26 v 0.43), minimum distal or proximal pH, total acid clearance time per hour (time with pH below pH 4), and total reflux duration per hour were not significantly different after GI than after placebo. Reflux height was marginally lower after GI (median 66.6% v 77.3% oesophageal length) compared with placebo., Conclusions: Results showed a marginal but significant difference between Gaviscon Infant and placebo in average reflux height, and raises questions regarding any perceived clinical benefit of its use.

We compared the efficacy of the prokinetic agent cisapride with that of Gaviscon (an alginate/alkaline compound) plus Carobel (carob seed flour) in the treatment of gastrooesophageal reflux (GOR). Fifty infants with confirmed GOR received either oral cisapride (0.8 mg/kg/day) or Gaviscon plus Carobel for one month in a randomised, parallel group study. Parental evaluations, diary scores, and 24 hour lower oesophageal pH recordings before and at the end of each treatment were compared. In the cisapride group 14/26 (53%) were considered better by their parents compared with 19/24 (79%) of those who received Gaviscon plus Carobel. Diary scores, range (0.00-1.00), improved in both groups with the median change being greater in the Gaviscon plus Carobel group (-0.21) than the cisapride group (-0.15). Five of 17 pH variables had significantly improved from baseline in infants who had received cisapride compared with 11/17 in those receiving Gaviscon plus Carobel. However, unpaired analysis of diary and pH data showed no significant differences between the two groups. We conclude that first line treatment of GOR with cisapride is no more effective than conventional treatment with Gaviscon plus Carobel.