Changes in high-resolution manometric diagnosis over time: implications for clinical decision-making

A practical approach to ineffective esophageal motility

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most frequently diagnosed esophageal motility abnormality and characterized by diminished esophageal peristaltic vigor and frequent weak, absent, and/or fragmented peristalsis on high-resolution esophageal manometry. Despite its commonplace occurrence, this condition can often provoke uncertainty for both patients and clinicians. Although the diagnostic criteria used to define this condition has generally become more stringent over time, it is unclear whether the updated criteria result in a more precise clinical diagnosis. While IEM is often implicated with symptoms of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, the strength of these associations remains unclear. In this review, we share a practical approach to IEM highlighting its definition and evolution over time, commonly associated clinical symptoms, and important management and treatment considerations. We also share the significance of this condition in patients undergoing evaluation for anti-reflux surgery and consideration for lung transplantation.

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.

Is systematic formal crural repair mandatory at the time of magnetic sphincter augmentation implantation?

Laparoscopic placement of the LINX Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation (MSA) device has become an accepted alternative to fundoplication in appropriate patients. Initial studies of MSA targeted to patients with 'early' disease allowed for the most minimal dissection of the esophagus to place the device, without hiatal dissection or repair (NoHHR), in patients with no or minimal hernia findings at surgery. Subsequent studies have compared systematic formal hiatal dissection and repair (Formal HHR) with the original minimal dissection technique. Review of published literature on MSA includes discussion on treatment of hiatal hernia at the time of implantation, accompanying the review of the physiology of the crural diaphragm. Formal hiatal hernia repair at the time of MSA implantation results in better control of reflux with less dysphagia and risk of postoperative hernia than NoHHR, regardless of the presence or size of hiatal hernia. Systematic crural repair should accompany any MSA implantation regardless of the presence or size of hiatal hernia.

Achalasia

Achalasia is a rare disorder of the oesophageal smooth muscle characterized by impaired relaxation of the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) and absent or spastic contractions in the oesophageal body. The key pathophysiological mechanism is loss of inhibitory nerve function that probably results from an autoimmune attack targeting oesophageal myenteric nerves through cell-mediated and, possibly, antibody-mediated mechanisms. Achalasia incidence and prevalence increase with age, but the disorder can affect all ages and both sexes. Cardinal symptoms consist of dysphagia, regurgitation, chest pain and weight loss. Several years can pass between symptom onset and an achalasia diagnosis. Evaluation starts with endoscopy to rule out structural causes, followed by high-resolution manometry and/or barium radiography. Functional lumen imaging probe can provide complementary evidence. Achalasia subtypes have management and prognostic implications. Although symptom questionnaires are not useful for diagnosis, the Eckardt score is a simple symptom scoring scale that helps to quantify symptom response to therapy. Oral pharmacotherapy is not particularly effective. Botulinum toxin injection into the LES can temporize symptoms and function as a bridge to definitive therapy. Pneumatic dilation, per-oral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic Heller myotomy can provide durable symptom benefit. End-stage achalasia with a dilated, non-functioning oesophagus may require oesophagectomy or enteral feeding into the stomach. Long-term complications can, rarely, include oesophageal cancer, but surveillance recommendations have not been established.

High-Pressure Tactics: Jackhammer Esophagus-Diagnosing Is Easier than Treating

Diagnosis of esophageal disorders is well ahead of available treatment options. With HRM, for example, one can identify numerous conditions and their variants, which may lose meaning if the clinical and therapeutic implications of these subclassifications are limited. We report an exemplary case of a patient with hiatal hernia complaining of reflux, dysphagia, and chest pain refractory to medical treatment. Jackhammer esophagus was diagnosed and a hybrid approach consisting of POEM and concomitant crural repair and Dor fundoplication is proposed.

The semirecumbent position for high-resolution esophageal manometry. Results of a feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

Normative values for high-resolution manometry (HRM) have been obtained with the patient lying supine. The aim of the study was to compare supine, semirecumbent and sitting positions during HRM in terms of variation in normative metrics, diagnostic yield, and patient's comfort.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center feasibility study was planned in consecutive patients referred to the esophageal function laboratory. In each of the three positions, 10 consecutive 5 ml water swallows and three 10 ml multiple rapid swallows were administered. Validated reflux questionnaires were administered prior to the test, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) assessing the patient's comfort after the test.

RESULTS

Twenty patients presenting with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms completed the study protocol. The intra-abdominal segment of the lower esophageal sphincter was significantly longer in the sitting position (P = 0.013), and the multiple rapid swallow distal contractile integral was lowest in the supine position (P = 0.012). The VAS comfort score did not significantly differ in the three body positions (P = 0.295). The concordance in the final diagnosis was 80% for semirecumbent vs. sitting (kappa = 0.15; P = 0.001), 70% for supine vs. sitting and 65.0% for semirecumbent vs. supine.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the supine position, both the semirecumbent and sitting position seems to provide similar advantages. HRM metrics and the final manometric diagnosis may be affected by body position, but complementary maneuvers, such are the rapid drink challenge, can resolve diagnostic discrepancies and improve the overall accuracy of the test.

Effect of Body Position on High-resolution Esophageal Manometry Variables and Final Manometric Diagnosis

Background/Aims

According to the Chicago classification version 3.0, high-resolution manometry (HRM) should be performed in the supine position. However, with the patient in the upright/sitting position, the test could more closely simulate real-life behavior and may be better tolerated. We performed a systematic review of the literature to search whether the manometric variables and the final diagnosis are affected by positional changes.

Methods

A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English that compared HRM results in different body positions were included. Moreover, the change in diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders according to the shift of body position was investigated.

Results

Seventeen studies including 1714 patients and healthy volunteers met the inclusion criteria. Six studies showed a significant increase in lower esophageal sphincter basal pressure in the supine position. Integrated relaxation pressure was significantly higher in the supine position in 10 of 13 studies. Distal contractile index was higher in the supine position in 9 out of 10 studies. One hundred and fifty-one patients (16.4%) out of 922 with normal HRM in the supine position were diagnosed with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) when the test was performed in the upright position (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Performing HRM in the upright position affects some variables and may change the final manometric diagnosis. Further studies to determine the normal values in the sitting position are needed.