Characteristics of Consecutive Esophageal Motility Diagnoses After a Decade of Change

Ineffective esophageal motility is associated with diabetes mellitus end organ complications

BACKGROUND

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is known to induce a wide range of harmful effects on several organs, notably leading to ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). However, the relationship between DM and IEM is not fully elucidated. We aimed to determine the relationship between DM and IEM and to evaluate the impact of DM's end organ complications on IEM severity.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) was performed. We reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with IEM using HREM, encompassing data on demographics, DM history, antidiabetic and other medications as well as comorbidities.

KEY RESULTS

Two hundred and forty six subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in any of the HREM parameters between diabetics and nondiabetics. Out of 246 patients, 92 were diabetics. Diabetics with neuropathy presented a significantly lower distal contractile integral (DCI) value compared to those without neuropathy (248.2 ± 226.7 mmHg·cm·sec vs. 375.6 ± 232.4 mmHg·cm·sec; p = 0.02) Similarly, the DCI was lower in diabetics with retinopathy compared to those without retinopathy (199.9 ± 123.1 mmHg·cm·sec vs. 335.4 ± 251.7 mmHg·cm·sec; p = 0.041). Additionally, a significant difference was observed in DCI values among DM patients with ≥2 comorbidities compared to those without comorbidities (224.8 ± 161.0 mmHg·cm·sec vs. 394.2 ± 243.6 mmHg·cm·sec; p = 0.025). Around 12.6% of the variation in DCI could be explained by its linear relationship with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), with a regression coefficient (β) of -55.3.

CONCLUSION & INFERENCES

DM is significantly associated with IEM in patients with neuropathy, retinopathy, or multiple comorbidities. These results are pivotal for tailoring patient-specific management approaches.

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.

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.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Compared to Chicago Classification Version 3.0

Background/Aims

Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) of esophageal motility disorders developed a more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) than version 3.0. We studied the implications of the new diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of IEM, and clinically characterized and compared the population of patients who no longer meet diagnostic criteria for IEM to those who retain the diagnosis.

Methods

We included all consecutively performed high-resolution esophageal impedance manometries from 2014 to 2021. Three cohorts of patients with IEM were created: Patients with IEM by Chicago classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0; CC3 group), by CCv4.0 only (CC4 group), and by CCv3.0 who are now considered normal (Normal group). Demographics, manometric and reflux parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 594 manometries were analyzed. Of those, 66 (11.1%) met criteria for IEM by CCv3.0 (CC3), 41 (62.0%) retained an IEM diagnosis using CCv4.0 criteria (CC4), while 25 (38.0%) patients no longer met criteria for IEM (Normal). The CC4 group had higher esophageal acid exposure, especially supine (% time - 18.9% vs 2.2%; P = 0.005), less adequate peristaltic reserve (22.0% vs 88.0%; P = 0.003), and higher Demeester score (49.0 vs 21.2; P = 0.017) compared to the Normal group. There was no difference in bolus clearance between the groups.

Conclusions

IEM under CCv4.0 has a stronger association with pathologic reflux, especially supine reflux, and inadequate peristaltic reserve, but impairment in bolus clearance is unchanged when compared with IEM diagnosed based on CCv3.0. Further studies are required to determine the implications of these findings on management strategies.

Evaluation of Therapeutic Effect of Buspirone in Improving Dysphagia in Patients with GERD and Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common esophageal motility disorder associated with low-to-moderate amplitude contractions in the distal esophagus in manometric evaluations. Despite recent new conceptions regarding the pathophysiology of esophageal motility and IEM, there are still no effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment of this disorder. This study aimed to investigate the effect of buspirone in the treatment of concomitant IEM and GERD. Methods and Materials: The present study was a randomized clinical trial conducted at the Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran. Patients with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease and dysphagia underwent upper endoscopy to rule out any mechanical obstruction and were diagnosed with an ineffective esophageal motility disorder based on high-resolution manometry. They were given a package containing the desired medication(s); half of the packets contained 10 mg (for 30 days) of buspirone and 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole, and the other half contained only 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole. Dysphagia was scored based on the Mayo score, as well as a table of dysphagia severity. Manometric variables were recorded before and after the treatment. Results: Thirty patients (15 pantoprazole and 15 pantoprazole plus buspirone) were included. Females comprised 63.3% of the population, with a mean age of 46.33 ± 11.15. The MAYO score and resting LES pressure significantly changed after treatment. The MAYO and Swallowing Disorder Questionnaire scores significantly decreased after treatment in both groups of patients. Our results revealed that the post-intervention values of manometric variables differed significantly between the two groups after controlling for the baseline values of the variables. This analysis did not demonstrate the superiority of buspirone. Conclusion: Buspirone seems to have no superiority over PPI. Treatment with concomitant IEM and GERD using proton pump inhibitors improves the patient’s clinical condition and quality of life. However, adding buspirone to the treatment regimen did not appear to make a significant difference in patient treatment.

The Supportive Role of Provocative Maneuvers and Impedance Clearance in Detecting Ineffective Esophageal Motility

BACKGROUND

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is one of the most common esophageal motility disorders. However, the definition of IEM has evolved. Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) made IEM parameters more stringent with greater than 70% of ineffective wet swallows (WS) necessary to diagnose conclusive IEM. Of the ineffective swallows, 50-70% are deemed "inconclusive cases". This study sought to determine whether provocative maneuvers, including multiple rapid swallows (MRS) and apple viscous swallows (AVS), and impedance clearance can provide supportive information for inconclusive IEM disorders based on CCv4.0.

METHODS

Esophageal motility data on 100 patients were analyzed. All patients completed WS and at least one additional swallow test (MRS and/or AVS). Patients were classified as having conclusive IEM, inconclusive IEM, or normal motility. IEM features detected on MRS/AVS and incomplete bolus clearance were recorded. Percentage of agreement between IEM features and incomplete bolus clearance was calculated for each motility group.

RESULTS

Ten patients had conclusive IEM, nine had inconclusive IEM, and 32 had normal motility. There was 70% agreement between IEM features and incomplete bolus clearance with conclusive IEM, 33% agreement with inconclusive IEM, and 9% agreement with normal motility. There was significantly more agreement in the conclusive and inconclusive IEM groups than in the normal motility group (P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Combinational follow-up testing with provocative maneuvers and impedance clearance may assist with risk stratification of IEM patients and assist in further management of inconclusive IEM. MRS and AVS can detect unique IEM features that may help with preoperative management of inconclusive IEM.

Dysphagia Worsens With Increasing Ineffective Swallows Among Patients With Ineffective Esophageal Motility

INTRODUCTION

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common motility disorder identified on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM), but patients with this finding may be asymptomatic. Therefore, we aimed to identify specific HRM findings predictive of symptoms in IEM.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18 y) who underwent HRM between March 2016 and July 2019 were retrospectively evaluated and reclassified according to Chicago Classification 4.0 (CC4.0). Demographic information, HRM parameters, and gastroesophageal reflux disease Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire responses were captured among those with normal manometry or IEM. We evaluated the association between heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia, with respect to HRM findings including ineffective swallows.

RESULTS

Of 379 patients, 243 (64.1%) had a normal manometry, 136 (35.9%) were on IEM spectrum, and 73 (19.3%) had conclusive IEM by CC4.0. Mean dysphagia scores were significantly higher in those with conclusive IEM compared with those with normal HRM (2.00 vs. 1.36, P=0.002), as was the percentage of individuals reporting dysphagia affecting daily activities (21.9% vs. 11.4%, P=0.02). Heartburn and regurgitation symptoms did not differ between groups. In a multivariable model of IEM patients, the percentage of ineffective swallows independently predicted a higher dysphagia burden (β regression coefficient: 0.032, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Applying the CC4.0 definition for conclusive IEM identifies a group of patients with worse dysphagia symptoms. Within this group, the percentage of ineffective swallows was an independent predictor of dysphagia severity. These findings may help practitioners and patients contextualize the heterogeneous diagnosis of IEM.

Advancing high-resolution manometry: evaluating the use of multiple rapid swallows versus apple viscous swallows in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

High-Resolution Manometry (HRM) with provocative maneuvers, such as Multiple Rapid Swallows (MRS) and Apple Viscous Swallows (AVS), is commonly utilized to diagnose esophageal disorders. Increasing standardization in HRM protocol can help save time and reduce patient discomfort. This study assesses AVS and MRS to determine their respective benefits and limitations.

METHODS

Retrospective reviews were performed on 100 patients to analyze their AVS and/or MRS results. Parameters included abnormal motility patterns, tolerance, and DCI. Diagnostic benefits from MRS and AVS were assessed. Based on the previous studies, additional benefit from MRS was defined as detection of good peristaltic reserve, weak peristaltic reserve, or an abnormal motility/pressurization pattern. Additional benefit from AVS was defined as detection of IEM features or abnormal motility/pressurization pattern.

RESULTS

When patients completed both MRS and AVS (n = 70), MRS provided additional benefit in assessing 36% of patients, while AVS provided additional benefit in 19% of patients (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, MRS detected significantly more abnormal motility/pressurization patterns than AVS (27% MRS; 8% AVS; p = 0.0005). Two unique strengths of AVS were higher tolerance for test completion (p = 0.009) and better detection of severe hypokinetic disorders in 4% of patients, which were missed by MRS.

CONCLUSIONS

MRS may uniquely identify abnormal motility/pressurization patterns, such as paradoxical LES response, distal pressurization, hypercontractile, and spasm patterns. These findings argue for a tailored approach when selecting provocative testing. MRS may be more useful for patients with abnormal pathophysiology, while AVS may help to supplement MRS in detecting severe hypokinetic disorders in preoperative management.

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

BACKGROUND

The updated Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) establishes a more stringent criteria to diagnose ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). This study aims to investigate the clinical significance of IEM in CCv4.0 in the context of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among suspected GERD patients who had heartburn and/or regurgitation as their chief complaints and completed esophageal function tests in our center from 2017 to 2019. Patients were further grouped as "CCv3.0 IEM" and normal motility according to Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and as "CCv4.0 IEM" and normal motility according to CCv4.0. The clinical characteristics, high-resolution manometry, esophageal reflux monitoring, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) efficacy were compared between different groups. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify esophageal motility parameters associated with reflux burden and symptom outcome.

RESULTS

Of 172 subjects included, 93 patients were identified as CCv3.0 IEM, 69 as CCv4.0 IEM. IEM in either version was concomitant with elevated acid burden and impaired esophageal clearance as compared to normal motility in corresponding diagnostic criteria, while the only presence of IEM in CCv4.0 was predictive to abnormal acid exposure (AET > 6%: OR = 2.66, 95% CI [1.27-5.56], p < 0.01). The presence of "CCv3.0 IEM" and low EGJ-CI (EGJ-CI < 39.1 mmHg·cm) had no added value in predicting increased reflux burden. No interaction effect was found between the presence of IEM and a weakened EGJ. None of the manometric variables was capable of predicting PPI response.

CONCLUSIONS

Stringent criteria of IEM in CCv4.0 can better predict abnormal acid exposure as compared to CCv3.0.

Long-term Outcomes of Per-oral Endoscopic Myotomy in Spastic Esophageal Motility Disorders: A Large, Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Spastic esophageal motility disorders (SEMD) are a rare group of motility disorders including type III achalasia, distal esophageal spasm (DES), and Jackhammer esophagus (JHE). Limited data suggest that per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may be effective in these disorders. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of POEM in SEMD.

METHODS

The data of patients with SEMD who underwent POEM (January 2013 to December 2019) were analyzed, retrospectively. The following outcomes were recorded: POEM procedure details, technical and clinical success, adverse events, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Clinical success was classified as immediate (<1 y), short-term (1 to 3 y), medium term (3 to 5 y), and long-term (>5 y).

RESULTS

A total of 1115 POEM procedures were performed during the study period for achalasia and nonachalasia spastic motility disorders. POEM was performed for SEMD in 74 (6.6%) patients including type III in 53, DES in 11, and JHE in 10 patients. Technical success was achieved in all the patients. The median follow-up for the entire group was 47.5 months (range: 2 to 77 mo). Clinical success at short-term (1 to 3 y) and long-term follow-up (>5 y) was attained in 85.2% and 82.6% patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical success between type III achalasia and JHE/DES. Mild and moderate adverse events were recorded in 21 (28.4%) cases. GERD was detected in 23 (56.1%) patients with 24-hour pH study. Erosive esophagitis and symptomatic GERD were found in 36 (48.6%) and 16 (21.6%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

POEM is a safe, effective, and durable treatment modality for spastic motility disorders of the esophagus. However, GERD is found in about half of the patients mandating close monitoring after POEM.

Management of Ineffective Esophageal Hypomotility

Esophageal hypomotility in general and especially ineffective esophageal motility according to the Chicago criteria of primary motility disorders of the esophagus, is one of the most frequently diagnosed motility disorders on high resolution manometry and results in a large number of patients visiting gastroenterologists. Most patients with esophageal hypomotility present with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms or dysphagia. The clinical relevance of the motility pattern, however, is not well established but seems to be correlated with disease severity in reflux patients. The correlation with dysphagia is less clear. Prokinetic agents are commonly prescribed as first line pharmacologic intervention to target esophageal smooth muscle contractility and improve esophageal motor functions. However, the beneficial effects of these medications are limited and only confined to some specific drugs. Serotonergic agents, including buspirone, mosapride and prucalopride have been shown to improve parameters of esophageal motility although the effect on symptoms is less clear. Understanding on the complex correlation between esophageal hypomotility and esophageal symptoms as well as the limited evidence of prokinetic agents is necessary for physicians to appropriately manage patients with Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM).

Ineffective esophageal motility assessment in patients with and without pathological esophageal acid reflux

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), defined as minor esophageal motility disorder, is also the most common esophageal motility disorder. The relationship between gastro-esophageal reflux disease is still controversial. Our aim in this study is to evaluate whether there are differences in terms of demographic, endoscopic, or motility findings between IEM patients with pathological esophageal acid reflux and physiological reflux.Patients diagnosed with IEM according to the Chicago classification v3 with high-resolution manometry (HRM) before acid monitoring constituted the study group of our investigation. The patients were divided into 2 groups as patients with pathological esophageal reflux and patients with physiological reflux according to 24-hour acid monitoring. Demographic data, endoscopic findings, and HRM findings were compared between 2 groups.A total of 62 patients who were diagnosed with IEM according to the Chicago classification v3 were included in the study. Patients in the physiological reflux group were 7 years younger on average than the pathological reflux group. Esophagitis rates were significantly higher in the pathological reflux group (P = .033). Lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure, integrated relaxation pressure, and the presence of hernia were found to be similar in the 2 groups (P = 392, P = 182, P = 657, respectively). The rate of severe IEM was also similar between the 2 groups (P = .143).The fact that the physiological reflux patient group is younger may suggest that the IEM develops in the early period and then reflux accompanies the picture with advancing age.

Contraction Reserve With Ineffective Esophageal Motility on Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry is Associated With Lower Acid Exposure Times Compared With Absent Contraction Reserve

INTRODUCTION

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a minor motor disorder with potential reflux implications. Contraction reserve, manifested as augmentation of esophageal body contraction after multiple rapid swallows (MRS), may affect esophageal acid exposure time (AET) in IEM.

METHODS

Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) and ambulatory reflux monitoring studies were reviewed over 2 years to identify patients with normal HRM, IEM (≥50% ineffective swallows), and absent contractility (100% failed swallows). Single swallows and MRS were analyzed using HRM software tools (distal contractile integral, DCI) to determine contraction reserve (mean MRS DCI to mean single swallow DCI ratio >1). Univariate analysis and multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine motor predictors of abnormal AET in the context of contraction reserve.

RESULTS

Of 191 eligible patients, 57.1% had normal HRM, 37.2% had IEM, and 5.8% had absent contractility. Contraction reserve had no affect on AET in normal HRM. Nonsevere IEM (5-7 ineffective swallows) demonstrated significantly lower proportions with abnormal AET in the presence of contraction reserve (30.4%) compared with severe IEM (8-10 ineffective swallows) (75.0%, P = 0.03). Abnormal AET proportions in nonsevere IEM with contraction reserve (32.7%) resembled normal HRM (33.0%, P = 0.96), whereas that in severe IEM with (46.2%) or without contraction reserve (50.0%) resembled absent contractility (54.5%, P ≥ 0.6). Multivariable analysis demonstrated contraction reserve to be an independent predictor of lower upright AET in nonsevere (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.88) but not severe IEM.

DISCUSSION

Contraction reserve affects esophageal reflux burden in nonsevere IEM. Segregating IEM into severe and nonsevere cohorts has clinical value.

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

Although High resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is the gold standard to assess esophageal motility, little is known about the stability of the manometric diagnosis over time and its implications for management. To assess the stability and usefulness of repeat HRM in patients presenting with esophageal symptoms over time we performed this retrospective study of patients with esophageal symptoms. Medical records, questionnaires, and HRM tracing were independently reviewed using the Chicago classification. The primary objective was to assess the stability of the manometric diagnosis over time; secondary objective was its change (positive or negative). At least one repeat study was performed in 86 patients (36% women, ages 20-86, with mild to moderate symptoms), while 26 had a third procedure. Mean intervals between studies were 15 ± 1.6 months (for baseline v. first study) and 13 ± 0.8 months (for second to third study). Of the 27 patients initially with a normal study, 11 changed (five had esophago-gastric junction outflow obstruction [EGJOO], two diffuse esophageal spasm [DES], one jackhammer esophagus [JE], and three ineffective esophageal motility [IEM] [41% change]). Of the 24 patients with initial EGJOO, only nine retained it (65.2% change). Of nine patients with initial DES, four changed (44.4% change). Similarly, different diagnosis was seen in 7 of 24 initial IEM patients (22.7% change). Only one patient had achalasia initially and this remained stable. Additional changes were noted on a third HRM. Fluidity in the HRM diagnosis over time questions its validity at any timepoint and raises doubts about the need for intervention.

Minor esophageal functional disorders: are they relevant?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

High resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) has expanded understanding of esophageal motor function. The Chicago Classification scheme has allowed systematic categorization of the myriad of manometric parameters identified during HRM. Multichannel intraluminal impedance pH has enhanced ambulatory reflux monitoring through complete assessment of esophageal content transit. However, the clinical implications of identified minor esophageal functional disorders remain unclear.

RECENT FINDINGS

Esophagogastric junction outlet obstruction is defined by esophagogastric junction obstruction with preserved peristalsis and may be managed expectantly, or in a manner similar to achalasia. Hypercontractile esophagus has been associated with dysphagia and non-cardiac chest pain, but the clinical significance is unclear as a majority of patients will improve without specific therapy. Additionally, these findings may be confounded by chronic opiate use. Ineffective esophageal motility is characterized by diminished esophageal contraction amplitude, potentially causing dysphagia and GERD. However, this is commonly identified in asymptomatic volunteers and may represent a normal variant. The multiple rapid swallow sequence can assess esophageal contraction reserve, which may predict post fundoplication dysphagia. The post-swallow induced peristaltic wave can serve as a surrogate of gastric refluxate clearance, providing important prognostic value. However, the associated time burden and lack of alternative therapeutic options limit its clinical utility.

SUMMARY

Minor esophageal functional disorders provide new therapeutic targets for symptomatic patients. However, these findings have inconsistent associations with symptoms and poorly defined therapeutic options. Minor esophageal function disorders should not be interpreted in isolation, with management decisions accounting for clinical, endoscopic, and radiographic factors in addition.

Ineffective esophageal motility: Concepts, future directions, and conclusions from the Stanford 2018 symposium

BACKGROUND

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a heterogenous minor motility disorder diagnosed when ≥50% ineffective peristaltic sequences (distal contractile integral <450 mm Hg cm s) coexist with normal lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (integrated relaxation pressure < upper limit of normal) on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). Ineffective esophageal motility is not consistently related to disease states or symptoms and may be seen in asymptomatic healthy individuals.

PURPOSE

A 1-day symposium of esophageal experts reviewed existing literature on IEM, and this review represents the conclusions from the symposium. Severe IEM (>70% ineffective sequences) is associated with higher esophageal reflux burden, particularly while supine, but milder variants do not progress over time or consistently impact quality of life. Ineffective esophageal motility can be further characterized using provocative maneuvers during HRM, especially multiple rapid swallows, where augmentation of smooth muscle contraction defines contraction reserve. The presence of contraction reserve may predict better prognosis, lesser reflux burden and confidence in a standard fundoplication for surgical management of reflux. Other provocative maneuvers (solid swallows, standardized test meal, rapid drink challenge) are useful to characterize bolus transit in IEM. No effective pharmacotherapy exists, and current managements target symptoms and concurrent reflux. Novel testing modalities (baseline and mucosal impedance, functional lumen imaging probe) show promise in elucidating pathophysiology and stratifying IEM phenotypes. Specific prokinetic agents targeting esophageal smooth muscle need to be developed for precision management.

A Positive Correlation Between Gastric and Esophageal Dysmotility Suggests Common Causality

BACKGROUND

Gastric and esophageal dysmotility syndromes are some of the most common motility diagnoses, but little is known about their interrelationship.

AIMS

The aim of our study was to determine if a correlation exists between gastric and esophageal dysmotility syndromes.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of all patients who underwent both solid gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES) and high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) within a 2 year period, with both done between August 2012 and August 2017. All GESs were classified as either rapid, normal, or delayed. All HRMs were classified according to the Chicago Classification 3.0. Correlations were assessed using Fisher's exact test and multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 482 patients met inclusion criteria. Of patients with a normal, delayed, and rapid GES, 53.1, 64.5, and 77.3% had an abnormal HRM, respectively (p < 0.05 vs. normal GES). Likewise, patients with an abnormal HRM were more likely to have an abnormal GES (54.9 vs. 41.8%, p = 0.005). Multiple logistic regression showed abnormal GES [odds ratio (OR) 2.14], age (OR 1.013), scleroderma (OR 6.29), and dysphagia (OR 2.63) were independent predictors of an abnormal HRM. Likewise, an abnormal HRM (OR 2.11), diabetes (OR 1.85), heart or lung transplantation (OR 2.61), and autonomic dysfunction (OR 2.37) were independent predictors of an abnormal GES.

CONCLUSIONS

The correlation between an abnormal GES and HRM argues for common pathogenic mechanisms of these motility disorders, and possibly common future treatment options. Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for another motility disorder if one is present.

High-resolution esophageal manometry in a Mexican population: diagnostic outcome

High-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) has become the method of choice for evaluation of esophageal motility disorders. There is a paucity of data with this technique from Hispanic countries. This study aims to characterize the diagnostic outcome of HREM in a large cohort of consecutive patients in Mexico.This study was conducted in Monterrey, Mexico from March 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015. Our diverse study population included patients from a major academic institution and the community. HREM was done applying the Chicago Classification 3. Diagnostic outcome was grouped as weak peristaltic disorders, gastroesophageal junction disorders, and hypertensive/uncoordinated peristalsis.We studied 670 consecutive patients, 57% were women, mean age was 43.8 years. The majority (465 [69%]) were referred for preoperative evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), 365 (78%) of whom had a normal study. Overall, 193 (29%) patients had abnormal motility, the most common disorder being weak peristalsis (104 [54%]). In patients with dysphagia, the most frequent finding was achalasia (23/46 [50%]).To our knowledge, this is the first study to characterize the diagnostic outcome of HREM in a large cohort of Hispanic patients in Latin America. At our open access center, 69% of patients were referred for preoperative evaluation of GERD, reflecting the popularity of antireflux surgery. This study confirms the high prevalence of weak peristalsis and highlights the importance of addressing its pathophysiology and management. The finding of achalasia in 50% of our patients with dysphagia is consistent with recent reports regarding the rising incidence of this disorder and underscores the need of prompt motility testing in this population.

Severity of ineffective esophageal motility is associated with utilization of skeletal muscle relaxant medications

BACKGROUND

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common finding on high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM). The underlying mechanisms for IEM remain to be fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to determine if utilization of skeletal muscle relaxants is associated with IEM, and with more severe subtypes of the disorder.

METHODS

Patients with diagnosis of IEM were gender and age matched to patients with normal HREM. Demographic information, symptoms, endoscopic findings, medication usage and medical comorbidities were recorded. Patients with a diagnosis of IEM were divided into subgroups based on mean distal contractile integral (DCI) and percentage of ineffective swallows, and assessed for clinically significant differences among patients with varying severity of underlying IEM.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included in each group. There were no significant clinical differences between the group of patients with IEM and the group of patients with normal manometry. Within the group of IEM patients, those with mean DCI < 250 mm Hg/s/cm were more likely to be prescribed skeletal muscle relaxants (27.8% vs 11.0%, P = .044), and those using skeletal muscle relaxants had a larger mean percentage of ineffective swallows (81.1% vs 71.5%, P = .029). There were no significant differences across mean DCI subgroups in usage of any other medication, or in any of the demographic variables or disease comorbidities examined in this study.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Use of skeletal muscle relaxants is associated with more severe IEM, which may suggest a causal association between this class of medications and weaker esophageal peristalsis.

Characterization of Esophageal Motility Disorders in Children Presenting With Dysphagia Using High-Resolution Manometry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Chicago classification was based on metrics derived from studies in asymptomatic adult subjects. Our objectives were to characterize esophageal motility disorders in children and to determine whether the spectrum of manometric findings is similar between the pediatric and adult populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have suggested that the metrics utilized in manometric diagnosis depend on age, size, and manometric assembly. This would imply that a different set of metrics should be used for the pediatric population. There are no standardized and generally accepted metrics for use in the pediatric population, though there have been attempts to establish metrics specific to this population. Overall, we found that the distribution of esophageal motility disorders in children was like that described in adults using the Chicago classification. This analysis will serve as a prequel to follow-up studies exploring the individual metrics for variability among patients, with the objective of establishing novel metrics for the pediatric population.