Primary Versus Secondary Esophageal Motility Disorders: Diagnosis and Implications for Treatment

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in named manometric patterns of dysmotility according to the Chicago Classification 4.0

Esophageal motility disorders (EMD) may be considered primary disorders only in the absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). If GERD is present, treatment should be directed toward correction of the abnormal reflux. The actual prevalence of GERD in manometric dysmotility patterns according to the new Chicago Classification 4.0 (CC4) is still elusive. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of GERD in patients with esophageal motility disorders according to the CC4. We reviewed 400 consecutive patients that underwent esophageal manometry and pH monitoring. Esophageal motility was classified according to the CC4 and GERD + was defined by a DeMeester score > 14.7. Normal motility or unclassified dysmotility was present in 290 (73%) patients, with GERD+ in 184 of them (63%). There were a total of 110 patients (27%) with named esophageal motility disorders, with GERD+ in 67 (61%). The incidence of ineffective esophageal motility was 59% (n = 65) with 69% GERD +, diffuse esophageal spasm was 40% (n = 44) with 48% GERD +, and hypercontractile esophagus was 0.01% (n = 1) with 100% GERD +. There was no correlation between the presence of GERD and the number of non-peristaltic swallows. Our results show that: (i) manometry only is not enough to select patients' treatment as >60% of patients with named esophageal motility disorders have GERD; (ii) there was no correlation between the presence of GERD and the number of non-peristaltic swallows.

Changes in the Treatment of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders Imposed by the New Classification for Esophageal Motility Disorders on High Resolution Manometry (Chicago Classification 4.0)

The Chicago Classification is the most used classification for primary esophageal motility disorders (PEMD). This classification was recently updated to the 4.0 version. This opinion piece focuses on the possible implications for the treatment of PMED determined by the new classification. Chicago Classification 4.0 included two new concepts for the diagnosis of achalasia: (1) type III achalasia diagnosis demands 100% absent peristalsis defined as either failed peristalsis or spasm; (2) “inconclusive diagnosis of achalasia” was added as a possibility. Both may decrease unnecessary treatment. Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, and hypercontractile esophagus were only considered clinically significant when correlated to supportive testing and relevant clinical symptoms and in the absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease. This may decrease the surge of treatment, especially peroral endoscopic myotomy, based solely on manometric diagnosis.

The level of impaired esophageal bolus transit measured by multichannel intraluminal impedance: Cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) are often diagnosed manometrically, yet the underlying pathology is not always clear. Esophageal function testing (EFT), which incorporates manometry and multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII), is considered a useful tool in the assessment of EMDs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the most likely level of impaired bolus transit within the esophagus which may help further localize and characterize EMDs.

METHODS

In a retrospective study design, we reviewed consecutive EFTs over a period of 12 months. Data included diagnosis, presenting symptoms, and EFT results of liquid and viscous swallows. Each patient underwent 10 liquid and 10 viscous swallows, and bolus transit is measured at 5, 10, 15 and 20 cm above the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). We recorded the initial level of impaired bolus transit for each swallow.

RESULTS

A total of 2358 swallows in 118 patients was included for analysis. Of these, 837 swallows (35.5%) were incompletely transmitted. The proportions of impaired bolus transit were 39%, 41%, 15.6%, 4.4% at 20 cm, 15 cm, 10 cm, and 5 cm above the GEJ, respectively. The common symptoms at presentation were dysphagia (47%), heartburn (44%), chest pain (24.6%) and regurgitation (18%). The mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure was 24 ± 13.9 mmHg whereas the mean contraction amplitude was 84 ± 46.6 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

In patients with abnormal esophageal clearance, the most likely levels of impaired bolus transit are 15 and 20 cm above the GEJ. These levels of the esophagus should be a focus of attention in future studies evaluating the pathophysiology of esophageal dysmotility.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication in Patients with Manometric Patterns of Esophageal Motility Disorders

The manometric pattern of either diffuse esophageal spasm (DES), nutcracker esophagus (NE), or hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter (HLES) in the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is considered a secondary finding and treatment should be directed toward GERD. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in patients with manometric patterns of esophageal motility disorders. Patients with GERD confirmed by pH monitoring and manometric pattern of DES (simultaneous contractions 20 to 90% of wet swallows), NE (increased mean distal amplitude greater than 180 mmHg), or HLES (lower esophageal sphincter pressure greater than 45 mmHg) who underwent LNF were studied. A group of 50 consecutive patients with normal esophageal motility who underwent LNF were used as control subjects. Groups were comparable to control subjects for age, gender, preoperative symptoms, hiatal hernia, and Barrett's esophagus, except for NE that had younger individuals and a lower rate of hiatal hernia. Symptomatic outcome was similar when groups were compared with control subjects. Transient dysphagia was present in the postoperative period in 33, 7, 0, and 20 per cent of the patients with HLES, DES, NE, and control subjects, respectively. LNF is an adequate treatment for patients with GERD and manometric patterns of esophageal motility disorders.

Pathophysiology of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease pathophysiology is multifactorial and linked to a misbalance between the aggressiveness of the refluxate into the esophagus or adjacent organs and the failure of protective mechanisms associate or not to a defective valvular mechanism at the level of the esophagogastric junction incapable of dealing with a transdiaphragmatic pressure gradient. Antireflux mechanisms include the lower esophageal sphincter and abdominal esophagus, the diaphragm, the angle of His, the Gubaroff valve, and the phrenoesophageal membrane. Protective mechanisms include esophageal motility, saliva production, and epithelial protection. Disruption of this balance occurs most commonly due to the presence of a hiatal hernia, esophageal dysmotility, a rise in abdominal pressure (obesity), and decrease in thoracic pressure (chronic lung diseases).

The clinical significance of hypercontractile peristalsis: comparison of high-resolution manometric features, demographics, symptom presentation, and response to therapy in patients with Jackhammer esophagus versus Nutcracker esophagus

The Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CC v 3.0) defines hypercontractile peristalsis as Jackhammer esophagus (JE); Nutcracker esophagus (NE) is no longer recognized. Data regarding patient characteristics and treatment response for JE versus NE are limited. We aimed to compare demographic characteristics, high resolution manometry (HRM) features, clinical presentation, management strategies, and treatment outcomes in patients with JE versus NE. We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients diagnosed with NE (CC v 2.0) or JE (CC v 3.0) by HRM from January 2012 to August 2015. Demographics, symptoms, treatments, and response to therapy (none or partial/complete) were ascertained by chart review, for statistical comparisons. In 45 patients with JE and 29 with NE, there was no significant difference in rate of dysphagia (73% and 59%) or chest pain (44% and 59%). Treatment data were available in 29 JE (smooth muscle relaxants in 4, pain modulators in 3, botulinum toxin injection (BTX) in 10, endoscopic dilation in 5, multimodal treatment in 7), and 20 NE patients (smooth muscle relaxants in 2, pain modulators in 2, (BTX) in 6, endoscopic dilation in 3, multimodal treatment in 7). Follow-up data on 26/29 JE and 20/20 NE patients showed similar treatment response (96.4% vs. 82.1%, p= 0.08) after mean follow-up of 11.2 and 11 months, respectively. There were no major differences for JE versus NE in demographics, symptoms, or type of and response to therapy. Larger prospective, controlled trials are needed to clarify the clinical significance and response to treatment in JE and NE.

Understanding the Chicago Classification: From Tracings to Patients

Current parameters of the Chicago classification include assessment of the esophageal body (contraction vigour and peristalsis), lower esophageal sphincter relaxation pressure, and intra-bolus pressure pattern. Esophageal disorders include achalasia, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, major disorders of peristalsis, and minor disorders of peristalsis. Sub-classification of achalasia in types I, II, and III seems to be useful to predict outcomes and choose the optimal treatment approach. The real clinical significance of other new parameters and disorders is still under investigation.

Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders: Beyond Achalasia

The best-defined primary esophageal motor disorder is achalasia. However, symptoms such as dysphagia, regurgitation and chest pain can be caused by other esophageal motility disorders. The Chicago classification introduced new manometric parameters and better defined esophageal motility disorders. Motility disorders beyond achalasia with the current classification are: esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, major disorders of peristalsis (distal esophageal spasm, hypercontractile esophagus, absent contractility) and minor disorders of peristalsis (ineffective esophageal motility, fragmented peristalsis). The aim of this study was to review the current diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders other than achalasia.

The role of Heller myotomy and POEM for nonachalasia motility disorders

The best-defined primary esophageal motor disorder is achalasia. However, symptoms such as dysphagia, regurgitation and chest pain can be caused by other esophageal motility disorders such as Diffuse Esophageal Spasm (DES), Nutcracker Esophagus (NE) and the Hypertensive Lower Esophageal Sphincter (HTN-LES). Most patients with DES and HTN-LES who complain of dysphagia improve after a myotomy. Patients with NE whose main complaint is chest pain, often do not have relief of the pain and can even develop dysphagia as a consequence of the myotomy. POEM is a relatively new procedure, and there are no studies with long-term follow-up and no prospective and randomized trials comparing it to surgical myotomy. Overall, the key to success is based on a complete evaluation and a careful patient selection. The best results, regardless of the technique, are in fact obtained in patients with outflow obstruction and impaired esophageal emptying, a picture similar to achalasia.

Esophageal hypermotility: cause or effect?

Nutcracker esophagus (NE), Jackhammer esophagus (JHE), distal esophageal spasm (DES), and hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter (HTLES) are defined by esophageal manometric findings. Some patients with these esophageal motility disorders also have abnormal gastroesophageal reflux. It is unclear to what extent these patients' symptoms are caused by the motility disorder, the acid reflux, or both. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) on esophageal motility disorders, gastroesophageal reflux, and patient symptoms. Between 2007 and 2013, we performed high-resolution esophageal manometry on 3400 patients, and 221 patients were found to have a spastic esophageal motility disorder. The medical records of these patients were reviewed to determine the manometric abnormality, presence of gastroesophageal symptoms, and amount of esophageal acid exposure. In those patients that underwent LNF, we compared pre- and postoperative esophageal motility, gastroesophageal symptom severity, and esophageal acid exposure. Of the 221 patients with spastic motility disorders, 77 had NE, 2 had JHE, 30 had DES, and 112 had HTLES. The most frequently reported primary and secondary symptoms among all patients were: heartburn and/or regurgitation, 69.2%; respiratory, 39.8%; dysphagia, 35.7%; and chest pain, 22.6%. Of the 221 patients, 192 underwent 24-hour pH monitoring, and 103 demonstrated abnormal distal esophageal acid exposure. Abnormal 24-hour pH monitoring was detected in 62% of patients with heartburn and regurgitation, 49% of patients with respiratory symptoms, 36.8 % of patients with dysphagia, and 32.6% of patients with chest pain. Sixty-six of the 103 patients with abnormal 24-hour pH monitoring underwent LNF. Thirty-eight (13NE, 2JHE, 6 DES, and 17 HTLES) of these 66 patients had a minimum of 6-month postoperative follow-up that included clinical evaluation, esophageal manometry, and 24-hour pH monitoring. Postoperatively, all 38 patients had normal distal esophageal acid exposure. Of these 38 patients, symptoms resolved in 28 and improved in 10. Of six patients (one with NE, two JHE, and three with HTLES) that underwent postoperative esophageal manometry, five exhibited normal motility. Typical reflux symptoms are common among patients with esophageal hypermotility disorders. Abnormal 24-hour pH monitoring is present in the majority of patients with who report typical reflux symptoms and almost half of patients who report respiratory symptoms. Conversely, the majority of patients who report dysphagia or chest pain have normal distal esophageal acid exposure. Based on a small number of patients in this study, it also appears that motility disorders often improve after LNF. LNF is associated with resolution or improvement in reflux related symptoms and esophageal motility parameters in patients exhibiting abnormal esophageal acid exposure. This suggests that patient symptoms are due to abnormal acid exposure and not the motility disorder.

[Clinical and pathogenetic features of esophageal spasm]

AIM

To comparatively analyze clinical manifestations in patients with primary esophageal spasm (ES) and its concurrence with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and the results of their instrumental examinations and psychodiagnostic tests.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 104 patients with the clinical and manometric signs of ES were examined and divided into two groups: 1) 42 patients with primary ES; 2) 62 patients with ES concurrent with GERD. The examination encompassed esophageal manometry, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 24-hour pH metry, and an interview using a questionnaire to identify autonomic disorders, and the Mini-Mult test.

RESULTS

The patients with primary ES compared to those with ES concurrent with GERD significantly more frequently showed severe pain syndrome (p = 0.009) and a paradoxical dysphagia pattern (p = 0.03); manometry revealed an incoordination in the motility of the entire esophagus (p = 0.001). Comparison of the statistical series of values for contraction amplitude and duration in the distal esophagus found no significant difference in the patients of both groups. Autonomic disturbances were detected in 76.0% of the patients with ES; but the intergroup differences were insignificant. Mental maladaptation was observed in 81.7% of the patients in the absence of intergroup differences.

CONCLUSION

The etiopathogenetic factor of ES is a psychoautonomic response to chronic stress in both primary ES and its concurrence with GERD. The reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus does not appear to be one of the leading causes of ES. In primary ES, esophageal motor function is generally impaired to a much greater extent than that in ES concurrent with GERD. The degree of motor disorders is embodied in the specific clinical features of the disease.

Nutcracker esophagus: demographic, clinical features, and esophageal tests in 115 patients

Nutcracker esophagus (NE) is a common esophageal motility disorder chacterized by high amplitude peristaltic contractions in the distal esophagus. While previous studies have examined selected aspects of this condition (e.g. pathogenesis and treatment), there is a paucity of data regarding demographic and clinical features in large cohorts of patients. The aim of this study was to describe demographics, clinical features, comorbidities, time to diagnosis, source of patient referral by specialty, and medication use in a large cohort of patients with NE. We retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of NE diagnosed from 2008-2010. The electronic medical records of these patients were reviewed, and relevant information was extracted. We identified 115 patients with NE. The median age was 62 years (range 25-87 years), and 63% were female. The median time patients experienced symptoms prior to diagnosis was 24 months (0-480 months). Most patients presented to an internal medicine consultant (42%) or to a gastroenterologist (35%). Presenting symptoms were chest pain (31%) and dysphagia (21%). Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were common: heartburn occurred in 51% of patients, 77% had a prior history of GERD, and 78% were receiving acid suppressive medications. GERD was confirmed by testing in at least 35%. Psychiatric comorbidity occurred in 24% with half the patients receiving psychotropic medications. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and fibromyalgia co-existed in 15% and 12% of patients, respectively. Surprisingly, opioids were prescribed to 26% of patients. No statistically significant correlation was found between esophageal motility parameters and symptoms. In this study, NE patients were more commonly middle-aged females experiencing a considerable amount of time between symptom onset and diagnosis. Many were initially evaluated by internists for dysphagia or chest pain and had a history of GERD. Medication prescribed prior to diagnoses frequently involved acid suppression, but narcotic and psychotropic prescriptions were also commonly used. Central sensitization syndromes (fibromyalgia and IBS), psychiatric comorbidity, and reflux commonly coexisted. Our study suggests that future investigations should address the role and interaction of GERD and psychiatric disorders in NE.

Causes and treatments of achalasia, and primary disorders of the esophageal body

The following on achalasia and disorders of the esophageal body includes commentaries on controversies regarding whether patients with complete lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation can be considered to exhibit early achalasia; the roles of different mucle components of the LES in achalasia; sensory neural pathways impaired in achalasia; indications for peroral endoscopic myotomy and advantages of the technique over laparoscopic and thorascopic myotomy; factors contributing to the success of surgical therapy for achalasia; modifications to the classification of esophageal body primary motility disorders in the advent of high-resolution manometry (HRM); analysis of the LES in differentiating between achalasia and diffuse esophageal spasm (DES); and appropriate treatment for DES, nutcracker esophagus (NE), and hypertensive LES (HTLES).

Distal esophageal spasm: an update

Distal esophageal spasm (DES) is an esophageal motility disorder that presents clinically with chest pain and/or dysphagia and is defined manometrically as simultaneous contractions in the distal (smooth muscle) esophagus in ≥20% of wet swallows (and amplitude contraction of ≥30 mmHg) alternating with normal peristalsis. With the introduction of high resolution esophageal pressure topography (EPT) in 2000, the definition of DES was modified. The Chicago classification proposed that the defining criteria for DES using EPT should be the presence of at least two premature contractions (distal latency<4.5 s) in a context of normal EGJ relaxation. The etiology of DES remains insufficiently understood, but evidence links nitric oxide (NO) deficiency as a culprit resulting in a disordered neural inhibition. GERD frequently coexists in DES, and its role in the pathogenesis of symptoms needs further evaluation. There is some evidence from small series that DES can progress to achalasia. Treatment remains challenging due in part to lack of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Current treatment agents include nitrates (both short and long acting), calcium-channel blockers, anticholinergic agents, 5-phosphodiesterase inhibitors, visceral analgesics (tricyclic agents or SSRI), and esophageal dilation. Acid suppression therapy is frequently used, but clinical outcome trials to support this approach are not available. Injection of botulinum toxin in the distal esophagus may be effective, but further data regarding the development of post-injection gastroesophageal reflux need to be assessed. Heller myotomy combined with fundoplication remains an alternative for the rare refractory patient. Preliminary studies suggest that the newly developed endoscopic technique of per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may also be an alternative treatment modality.

Progression of diffuse esophageal spasm to achalasia: incidence and predictive factors

The progression of certain primary esophageal motor disorders to achalasia has been documented; however, the true incidence of this decay is still elusive. This study aims to evaluate: (i) the incidence of the progression of diffuse esophageal spasm to achalasia, and (ii) predictive factors to this progression. Thirty-five patients (mean age 53 years, 80% females) with a manometric picture of diffuse esophageal spasm were followed for at least 1 year. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease confirmed by pH monitoring or systemic diseases that may affect esophageal motility were excluded. Esophageal manometry was repeated in all patients. Five (14%) of the patients progressed to achalasia at a mean follow-up of 2.1 (range 1-4) years. Demographic characteristics were not predictive of transition to achalasia, while dysphagia (P= 0.005) as the main symptom and the wave amplitude of simultaneous waves less than 50 mmHg (P= 0.003) were statistically significant. In conclusion, the transition of diffuse esophageal spasm to achalasia is not frequent at a 2-year follow-up. Dysphagia and simultaneous waves with low amplitude are predictive factors for this degeneration.

Presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of oesophageal motility disorders

Whilst the current treatment of achalasia is well understood, the management of other oesophageal disorders is still debated, as these are rare and the literature on their clinical presentation and management is scarce. The following review describes the clinical presentation of oesophageal motility disorders, gives an overview of their diagnosis in light of the new advances in oesophageal motility testing, and provides an evidence-based approach to their management with different forms of treatment (medical, endoscopic, and minimally invasive).

Achalasia and other esophageal motility disorders

Achalasia, diffuse esophageal spasm, nutcracker esophagus, and the hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter are considered primary esophageal motility disorder. These disorders are characterized by esophageal dysmotility that is responsible for the symptoms. While there is today a reasonable consensus about the pathophysiology, the diagnosis, and the treatment of achalasia, this has not occurred for the other disorders. A careful evaluation is therefore necessary before an operation is considered.