Ineffective esophageal motility in Chicago Classification version 4.0 better predicts abnormal acid exposure

Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Improves Stratification of Ineffective Esophageal Motility Patients into Clinically Meaningful Subtypes: A Two-Center International Study

The 4th iteration of the Chicago Classification (CC v4.0) for esophageal motility disorders offers more restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to version 3.0 (CC v3.0). In light of the updated criteria for IEM, we aimed to characterize and compare the patients who retained their IEM diagnosis to those who were reclassified as normal motility, and to evaluate the clinical impact of the newly introduced CC v4.0. We performed a retrospective case-control study. We included all individuals who underwent a high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2020 and 2021 at two centers. Consecutive studies reported as IEM according to the CC v3.0 were reanalyzed according to the CC v4.0. We compared demographics, clinical, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters. Out of 452 manometry studies, 154 (34%) met criteria for IEM as per the CC v3.0 (CC v3.0 IEM group). Of those, 39 (25%) studies were reclassified as normal studies according to the CC v4.0 (CC v4.0 normal group), while the remaining 115 studies (25% of the overall cohort) retained an IEM diagnosis (CC v4.0 IEM group). The CC v4.0 normal group had more recovered contractions during solid swallows (p = 0.01), less ineffective swallows (p = 0.04), and lower acid exposure time (p = 0.02) compared to the CC4.0 IEM group. Under CC v4.0 criteria, fewer patients are diagnosed with IEM. Those diagnosed with IEM had worse esophageal function and higher acid burden. Though further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results indicate that CC v4.0 criteria restrict the IEM diagnosis to a more clinically meaningful population.

Esophageal motility disorder - has Chicago classification v4.0 simplified our management?

REVIEW PURPOSE

Addressing dysphagia is vital due to its prevalence and impact on healthcare expenditure. While high resolution manometry (HRM) effectively evaluates esophageal dysphagia, its role in oropharyngeal dysphagia and upper esophageal sphincter (UES) dysfunction remains debated. The fourth iteration of the Chicago classification (CC) offers an algorithmic approach for diagnosing abnormal motor patterns via HRM. This review assesses the CC's impact on dysphagia management.

RECENT INSIGHTS

The Chicago classification version 4.0 emphasizes auxiliary and provocative techniques when the algorithm falls short of a conclusive diagnosis. It introduces stricter criteria for previously ambiguous conditions like ineffective motility and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. This version also introduces the concept of conclusive and inconclusive classifications based on symptoms, provocation maneuvers, and supportive testing minimizing ambiguity.

SUMMARY

The Chicago classification v4.0 remains a useful tool for the diagnosis of well characterized esophageal motility disorders. However, major limitations include reliance on HRM and a focus on distal esophagus contractile characteristics without considering proximal esophagus or upper esophageal sphincter, both of which can sometimes be the only evident abnormality in patients with dysphagia. Despite efforts to reduce ambiguity, diagnostic challenges persist. These limitations can be addressed in future updates.

Contraction reserve in high resolution manometry is correlated with lower esophageal acid exposure time in patients with normal esophageal motility: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

In high resolution manometry (HRM), distal contractile integral post multiple rapid swallow augmentation is considered as contraction reserve. The relationship between contraction reserve and esophageal acid reflux remains unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the correlation between contraction reserve and esophageal acid exposure in ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and normal HRM.

METHODS

Patients who underwent HRM and ambulatory reflux monitoring were retrospectively screened. Those with diagnosis of normal HRM or IEM were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients with abnormal acid exposure time (AET) was compared between patients with and without contraction reserve. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of abnormal AET and contraction reserve.

RESULTS

A total of 338 patients, including 264 normal HRM and 74 IEM, were included in the analysis. In patients with normal HRM, proportion of abnormal total AET (AET > 6.0%) was significantly lower in patients with supine contraction reserve than patients without contraction reserve (13.85% vs. 24.63%, p = 0.027). Multivariate regression analysis showed that supine contraction reserve could independently predict abnormal total AET (OR = 0.468, 95% CI: 0.249-0.948, p = 0.034), while upright contraction reserve trended strongly (OR = 0.558, 95% CI: 0.290-1.071, p = 0.079). Subgroup analysis showed that upright contraction reserve was an independent predictor of abnormal total AET in patients with 50-70% infective swallows (OR = 0.205, 95% CI: 0.051-0.821, p = 0.025), whereas supine contraction reserve did not have predictive value (p = 0.359).

CONCLUSIONS

Supine contraction reserve correlates with esophageal acid reflux in patients with normal HRM, while only upright contraction reserve correlates with esophageal acid reflux in patients with infective swallows of 50-70%.

Ineffective esophageal motility: The impact of change of criteria in Chicago Classification version 4.0 on predicting outcome after magnetic sphincter augmentation

BACKGROUND

The most recent update of the Chicago Classification (CCv4.0) attempts to provide a more clinically relevant definition for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). The impact of this new definition on predicting outcome after antireflux surgery is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare utility of IEM diagnosis based on CCv4.0 to CCv3.0 in predicting surgical outcome after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and to assess any additional parameters that hold value in future definitions.

METHODS

Records of 336 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed. Preoperative manometry files were re-analyzed using both Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) and CCv4.0 definitions of IEM. The utility of each IEM definition in predicting surgical outcome was then compared. Individual manometric components and impedance data were also assessed.

KEY RESULTS

Immediate dysphagia was reported by 186 (55.4%) and persistent dysphagia by 42 (12.5%) patients. CCv3.0 IEM criteria were met by 37 (11%) and CCv4.0 IEM by 18 (5.4%) patients (p = 0.011). CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 IEM were equally poor predictors of immediate (AUC = 0.503 vs. 0.512, p = 0.7482) and persistent (AUC = 0.519 vs. 0.510, p = 0.7544) dysphagia. The predicted dysphagia probability of less than 70% bolus clearance (BC) was 17.4%, higher than CCv4.0 IEM at 16.7%. When BC was incorporated into CCv4.0 IEM criteria, the probability increased significantly to 30.0% (p = 0.0042).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 of IEM are poor predictors of dysphagia after MSA. Adding BC to the new definition improves its predictive utility and should be considered in future definitions.

The Relationship Between Vocal Fold Mobility Disorders and Ineffective Esophageal Motility

OBJECTIVE

Deglutition, speech production, and airway protection are extraordinarily complex, interrelated functions that are coordinated, in large part, by the motor and sensory innervation of CN X. Previous studies assessing the relationship between neurogenic voice disorders and dysphagia have focused on the risk of aspiration due to glottic insufficiency and the association of vocal fold hypomobility (VFH) with systemic neurologic disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between VFH disorders and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).

METHODS

Adult voice patients who underwent laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) and dual 24-hour pH impedance with high-resolution manometry (HRM) testing were included in the study. Subjects were assigned to one of two groups based on the presence or absence of moderate-to-severe RLN and/or SLN VFH (Mo-SLNH/RLNH) using results from six muscle LEMG tests. In subjects with Mo-SLNH/RLNH, there was 0-60% muscle recruitment on LEMG, whereas control subjects in the non-Mo-SLNH/RLNH group demonstrated 61-100% muscle recruitment. Analysis of mild-to-severe VFH (80% muscle recruitment or less) was also performed in a similar manner. The prevalence of IEM, defined using Chicago Classification Version 4.0 (CCv4.0), was compared between groups, as were HRM parameters.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two subjects were included (37.7% male/62.3% female, mean age of 43.88 ± 17.285). No differences in IEM prevalence were found when stratifying for cases of mild-to-severe VFH. However, there was significantly higher percentage of IEM in those with Mo-SLNH/RLNH. Mo-SLNH/RLNH subjects demonstrated higher rates of weak swallows and inefficient swallows, as well as lower IBP and UES residual pressures on HRM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with Mo-SLNH/RLNH demonstrated a significantly higher prevalence of IEM. Those with mild-to-severe VFH did not. Higher rates of ineffective and weak swallows, and lower IBP and UES residual pressures among Mo-SLNH/RLNH subjects suggest a possible connection between Mo-SLNH/RLNH and IEM disorders. These manometric differences were more prominent with sub-stratification of the Mo-SLNH/RLNH group by IEM. Additional research is advised.

Esophageal chemical clearance and mucosa integrity values in refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with different esophageal dynamics

OBJECTIVES

Esophageal post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index (PSPWI) and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), novel impedance-based markers of reflux burden, are associated with esophageal dynamics. We aim to investigate the characteristics of PSPWI and MNBI in Chinese refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (RGERD) patients with different esophageal dynamic changes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

201 RGERD and 76 functional heartburn patients, undergone off-PPI endoscopy, esophageal manometry and impedance-pH monitoring, were included. Comparisons of conventional and novel impedance-pH metrics were made among different esophageal dynamics groups. Receiver operating-characteristic analyses were utilized to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of PSPWI and MNBI in differentiating abnormal esophageal dynamics. Correlations were used to investigate their associated factors.

RESULTS

PSPWI and MNBI of RGERD with esophagogastric junction (EGJ) injury and esophageal dysmotility were lower than EGJ injury alone or normal dynamics (p < 0.05 for both comparisons). PSPWI with esophageal peristalsis abnormality was lower than EGJ injury (p = 0.049), while MNBI showed no statistical difference. PSPWI, MNBI and their combination have auxiliary diagnostic values for esophageal peristalsis [area under the curves (AUCs): 0.683, 0.656, 0.708)] while only their combination for EGJ injury (AUC: 0.610). And they positively correlated with esophageal motility while negatively correlated with ineffective swallows and acid reflux events.

CONCLUSIONS

PSPWI and MNBI, indicating impairment of esophageal chemical clearance and mucosa integrity, were lower in RGERD patients with multiple esophageal dynamic injuries than single injuries or normal dynamics. Moreover, they provided useful contributing information for potential dynamic injuries if manometry has already been found normal or marginal.

Comparing Patients Diagnosed With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by the Chicago Classification Version 3.0 and Version 4.0 Criteria

Background

The Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is more stringent than the Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) definition. We aimed to compare the clinical and manometric features of patients meeting CCv4.0 IEM criteria (group 1) versus patients meeting CCv3.0 IEM but not CCv4.0 criteria (group 2).

Methods

We collected retrospective clinical, manometric, endoscopic, and radiographic data on 174 adults diagnosed with IEM from 2011 to 2019. Complete bolus clearance was defined as evidence of exit of the bolus by impedance measurement at all distal recording sites. Barium studies included barium swallow, modified barium swallow, and barium upper gastrointestinal series studies, and collected data from these reports include abnormal motility and delay in the passage of liquid barium or barium tablet. These data along with other clinical and manometric data were analyzed using comparison and correlation tests. All records were reviewed for repeated studies and the stability of the manometric diagnoses.

Results

Most demographic and clinical variables were not different between the groups. A lower mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was correlated with greater percent of ineffective swallows in group 1 (n = 128) (r = -0.2495, P = 0.0050) and not in group 2. In group 1, increased percent of failed contractions on manometry was associated with increased incomplete bolus clearance (r = 0.3689, P = 0.0001). No such association was observed in group 2. A lower median integrated relaxation pressure was correlated with greater percent of ineffective contractions in group 1 (r = -0.1825, P = 0.0407) and not group 2. Symptom of dysphagia was more prevalent (51.6% versus 69.6%, P = 0.0347) in group 2. Dysphagia was not associated with intrabolus pressure, bolus clearance, barium delay, or weak or failed contractions in either group. In the small number of subjects with repeated studies, a CCv4.0 diagnosis appeared more stable over time.

Conclusions

CCv4.0 IEM was associated with worse esophageal function indicated by reduced bolus clearance. Most other features studied did not differ. Symptom presentation cannot predict if patients are likely to have IEM by CCv4.0. Dysphagia was not associated with worse motility, suggesting it may not be primarily dependent on bolus transit.