Influence of everyday bolus consistencies in different body positions on high-resolution esophageal pressure topography (HREPT) parameters

Impact of patient position on esophageal motility disorders using high-resolution esophageal manometry with impedance (HREMI): supine versus upright swallows

BACKGROUND

High-resolution esophageal manometry with impedance (HREMI) performed with supine patient positioning is used to evaluate patients for esophageal dysmotility. However, most patients experience symptoms related to esophageal dysmotility when eating or drinking upright. The aims of this study are to: (1) compare HREMI metrics in supine versus upright position; and (2) determine if upright position alters motility characterization of patients.

METHODS

HREMI of twelve wet swallows in supine position and five wet swallows in upright position were performed on normal subjects (NS) and consecutive patients. Chicago Classification v3.0 (CC) diagnoses were evaluated in the supine position and a modified version of the Chicago Classification system was used in the upright position using normative upright values for DCI and IRP.

RESULTS

DCI decreased in NS by 414 mmHg × cm × sec (p = 0.001) and patients by 613 mmHg × cm × sec (p < 0.001). IRP decreased in NS by 6.2 mmHg (p < 0.001) and patients by 4.6 mmHg (p < 0.001). The rate of successful bolus clearance decreased in the upright position in patients by 11% (p < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences were observed in NS. 82 of 200 patients (41%) had a change in CC diagnosis in the upright position. Bolus clearance in the upright position varied in patients depending on their diagnosis in the upright position.

CONCLUSIONS

Upright swallows had lower LES, IRP, DCI and UES pressures in both normal subjects and patients with decreased bolus clearance in patients. Upright positioning can alter esophageal motility patterns and enhance diagnostic yield. Thus, upright swallows supplement supine swallows to help characterize esophageal dysmotility.

Variations in Clinical Practice of Esophageal High-resolution Manometry: A Nationwide Survey

Background/Aims

Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) enables the comprehensive evaluation of the esophageal motor function. However, protocols are not uniform and clinical practices vary widely among institutions. This study aims to understand the current HRM practice in Korea.

Methods

The survey was sent via email through the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. The questions covered descriptive information, preparation, techniques, analysis, and reporting of esophageal HRM.

Results

The survey was completed in 32 (74.4%) out of 43 centers, including 24 tertiary and 8 secondary referral centers. Of the 32 centers, 25 (78.1%) performed HRM in a sitting position, while 7 centers (21.9%) reported performing HRM in a supine position. All the centers utilized single wet swallows as a standard, but the volume, frequency, and interval between swallows varied widely. Sixteen centers (50.0%) applied adjunctive tests, including multiple rapid swallows (n = 16) and rapid drink challenges (n = 9). Parameters assessed and documented in the report were similar. In addition to the assessment of the esophagogastric junction and esophageal body, 27 centers (84.8%) and 18 centers (56.3%) included measurements for the upper esophageal sphincter and the pharynx, respectively, in the HRM protocol.

Conclusions

We found a variation in the available HRM practice among centers, even though they broadly agreed in the data analysis. Efforts are needed to develop a standardized protocol for HRM measurement.

Onigiri esophagography as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders

Background/Aims

No screening test for esophageal motility disorder (EMD) has been established, the objective of this study is to examine the potential usefulness of our newly developed “Onigiri esophagography” combined with an obstruction level (OL) classification system in screening for EMD.

Methods

A total of 102 patients with suspected EMDs who underwent both high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Onigiri esophagography between April 2017 and January 2019 were examined. The EMD diagnosis was performed based on the Chicago classification version 3.0 by HRM. Onigiri esophagography was performed using a liquid medium (barium sulfate) followed by a solid medium, which consisted of an Onigiri (a Japanese rice ball) with barium powder. The extent of medium obstruction was assessed by the OL classification, which was defined in a stepwise fashion from OL0 (no obstruction) to OL4 (severe obstruction).

Results

The patients with OL0 (32.3%), OL1 (50.0%), OL2 (88.0%), OL3 (100.0%), and OL4 (100.0%) were diagnosed EMDs by HRM. The area under the curve, as determined by a receiver operating characteristic analysis, for the OL classification was 0.86. Using the cutoff value of OL1, the sensitivity and specificity were 87.3% and 61.3%, respectively, while using a cutoff value of OL2, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.2% and 90.3%, respectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Onigiri esophagography combined with the OL classification system can be used as a screening test for EMDs with a cutoff value of OL1.

The effects of different postures and provocative swallow materials on the normative Chicago 3.0 metrics in a healthy Asian population

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Variations in the Chicago 3.0 normative metrics may exist with different postures and with different provocative swallow materials in a healthy Asian population.

METHOD

Eligible healthy Malay volunteers were invited to undergo the high-resolution esophageal manometry (inSIGHT Ultima, Diversatek Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA). In recumbent and standing positions, test swallows were performed using liquid, viscous, and solid materials. Metrics including integrated relaxation pressure 4 s (IRP-4 s, mmHg), distal contractile integral (DCI, mmHg s cm), distal latency (DL, s), and peristaltic break (PB, cm) were reported in median and 95th percentile.

RESULTS

Fifty of 57 screened participants were recruited, and 586 saline, 265 viscous, and 261 solid swallows were analyzed. Per-patient wise, in the recumbent position, 95th percentile for IRP-4 s, DCI, DL, and PB were 16.5 mmHg, 2431 mmHg s cm, 8.5 s, and 7.2 cm, respectively. We observed that with each posture, the use of viscous swallows led to changes in DL, but the use of solid swallows led to more changes in the metrics including DCI and length of PB. Compared with a recumbent posture, anupright posture led to lower IRP-4 s and DCI values. Both per-patient analysis and per-swallow analyses yielded almost similar results when comparing the different postures and types of swallows. No major motility disorders were observed in this cohort of asymptomatic population. However, more motility disorders were reported in the upright position.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in metrics can be observed in different postures and with different provocative swallow materials in a healthy population. The normative Chicago 3.0 metrics are also determined for the Malay population.

Chicago classification version 4.0© technical review: Update on standard high-resolution manometry protocol for the assessment of esophageal motility

The Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). A key feature of CCv.4.0 is the more rigorous and expansive protocol that incorporates single wet swallows acquired in different positions (supine, upright) and provocative testing, including multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge. Additionally, solid bolus swallows, solid test meal, and/or pharmacologic provocation can be used to identify clinically relevant motility disorders and other conditions (eg, rumination) that occur during and after meals. The acquisition and analysis for performing these tests and the evidence supporting their inclusion in the Chicago Classification protocol is detailed in this technical review. Provocative tests are designed to increase the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of HRM studies for disorders of esophageal motility. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification, decrease the proportion of HRM studies that deliver inconclusive diagnoses and increase the number of patients with a clinically relevant diagnosis that can direct effective therapy. Another aim in establishing a standard manometry protocol for motility laboratories around the world is to facilitate procedural consistency, improve diagnostic reliability, and promote collaborative research.

High-Resolution Manometry-Observations After 15 Years of Personal Use-Has Advancement Reached a Plateau?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the absence of mucosal or structural disease, the aim of investigating the oesophagus is to provide clinically relevant measurements of function that can explain the cause of symptoms, identify pathology and guide effective management. One of the most notable recent advances in the field of oesophageal function has been high-resolution manometry (HRM). This review explores how innovation in HRM has progressed and has far from reached a plateau.

RECENT FINDINGS

HRM technology, methodology and utility continue to evolve; simple additions to the swallow protocol (e.g. eating and drinking), shifting position, targeting symptoms and adding impedance sensors to the HRM catheter have led to improved diagnoses, therapeutic decision-making and outcomes. Progress in HRM persists and shows little sign of abating. The next iteration of the Chicago Classification of motor disorders will highlight these advances and will also identify opportunities for further research and innovation.

Elicitation of the Swallowing Reflex by Esophageal Stimulation in Healthy Subjects: An Evaluation Using High-Resolution Manometry

The purposes of this human study using high-resolution manometry were to verify whether the swallowing reflex can be evoked by intra-esophageal fluid injection and whether the reflex latency and manometric variables differ depending on the injected location, amount, or speed. Ten healthy individuals participated in this study. The tip of the intranasal catheter for injection was placed at 5 cm (upper), 10 cm (upper-middle), 15 cm (lower-middle), or 20 cm (lower) from the distal end of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). An intra-esophageal injection of 3 mL or 10 mL of thickened water was administered and controlled at 3 mL/s or 10 mL/s. Latencies from the start of the injection to the onset of UES relaxation were compared regarding injection locations, amounts, and rates. Manometric variables of intra-esophageal injection and voluntary swallowing were compared. The latency became shorter when the upper region was injected. Latency after the 10-mL injection was shorter than that after the 3-mL injection (p < 0.01) when faster injection (10 mL/s) was used. Faster injection induced shorter latency (p < 0.01) when a larger volume (10 mL) was injected. Pre-maximum and post-maximum UES pressures during voluntary swallowing or during spontaneous swallowing when injecting the upper esophageal region were significantly higher than spontaneous swallowing at other regions (p < 0.01). Intra-esophageal fluid injection induces the swallowing reflex in humans. The most effective condition for inducing the swallowing reflex involved a larger fluid amount with a faster injection rate in the upper esophagus.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for oesophageal manometry and oesophageal reflux monitoring

These guidelines on oesophageal manometry and gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring supersede those produced in 2006. Since 2006 there have been significant technological advances, in particular, the development of high resolution manometry (HRM) and oesophageal impedance monitoring. The guidelines were developed by a guideline development group of patients and representatives of all the relevant professional groups using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A systematic literature search was performed and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of the recommendations made. Key strong recommendations are made regarding the benefit of: (i) HRM over standard manometry in the investigation of dysphagia and, in particular, in characterising achalasia, (ii) adjunctive testing with larger volumes of water or solids during HRM, (iii) oesophageal manometry prior to antireflux surgery, (iv) pH/impedance monitoring in patients with reflux symptoms not responding to high dose proton pump inhibitors and (v) pH monitoring in all patients with reflux symptoms responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned, but combined pH/impedance monitoring in those not responsive to proton pump inhibitors in whom surgery is planned. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG.

Esophageal provocation tests: Are they useful to improve diagnostic yield of high resolution manometry?

High resolution manometry (HRM) is the gold standard to diagnose esophageal motility disorders but has some limitations. The inclusion of provocative tests might enhance the diagnostic yield of HRM. These tests are easy to perform and to add to the regular manometry protocol. Multiple rapid swallows (MRS; 5 2-mL swallows) is useful to assess the contractile reserve and deglutitive inhibition. The optimal number of MRS to perform might be 3 as suggested by Mauro et al. in this issue of Neurogastroenterology & Motility. The absence of contractile reserve might be associated with gastro-esophageal reflux disease and with an increased risk of post fundoplication dysphagia. Single viscous and solid swallows might enhance the detection of esophageal motility disorders but are not significantly associated with symptom occurrence. Test meal has the advantage to represent a real-life scenario and is promising to depict significant motility findings responsible for esophageal symptoms. Post-prandial recording might also be of interest to diagnose rumination and belching disorders. The best indication of rapid drink challenge test (free drinking of 200 mL) is currently the diagnosis of esophago-gastric junction obstruction. Finally, abdominal compression might be an option to evaluate response of esophageal peristalsis in a context of outflow resistance as proposed by Brink et al. in this issue. These provocative maneuvers appear to provide a complementary role in the evaluation of esophageal motility but require prospective studies to determine the validity of the findings and whether they will lead to changes in clinical practice.

Variation in esophageal physiology testing in clinical practice: Results from an international survey

BACKGROUND

Advances in clinical measurement of esophageal motility and function have improved the assessment of swallowing disorders and reflux symptoms. Variation in data acquisition, analysis, and reporting exists and impacts on diagnosis and management.

AIMS AND METHODS

This study examined variation in esophageal manometry methodology between institutions to establish the status in current practice. A structured survey was distributed through international NGM societies using an Internet-based platform. Questions explored infrastructure, technology, analysis, and reporting.

KEY RESULTS

Responses were received from 91 centers from 29 countries. Eighteen (20%) centers used "conventional" manometry, 75 (82%) high-resolution manometry, and 53 (58%) HR impedance manometry. All centers documented motility for single water swallows. The Chicago Classification was applied by 65 (71.4%) centers. In contrast, analysis of EGJ morphology varied widely. Adjunctive testing was often applied: multiple rapid swallows (77%), rapid drink challenge (77%), single solid swallows (63%), and a standard test meal (18%). Of 86 (94.5%) units that offered pH impedance (pH-Z) studies, approximately half (53.5%) performed tests on acid-suppressant medication in patients with a high pretest probability (eg, erosive esophagitis). Most (75.6%) centers manually reviewed every reflux event. Others examined pH-Z data only prior to symptoms. To assess symptom association with reflux events, 73.6% centers analyzed each symptom separately, whereas 29.7% centers pooled symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

There is marked variation in the data acquisition, analysis, and reporting of esophageal manometry studies. Further efforts to improve quality and uniformity in testing and reporting are required. This survey provides information upon which best-practice guidelines can be developed.

The motility of esophageal sphincters during liquid and solid bolus swallows: a multicenter normative value study of high-resolution manometry in China

BACKGROUND

It is gradually accepted that solid bolus swallow needs to be added to the procedure of manometry. The motility differences in the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) were not well described. Sierra Scientific Instruments solid-state high-resolution manometry (HRM) system, the most popular HRM system in China, lacks the Chinese normative values for both liquid and solid bolus swallow parameters.

METHODS

The esophageal HRM data of 88 healthy volunteers were analyzed. The parameters of both sphincters in resting stage were summarized and those during solid and liquid swallows were compared.

KEY RESULTS

Normative HRM values of sphincter parameters in solid and liquid bolus swallows in China were established. The UES residual pressure of solid bolus swallows was lower than that of liquid bolus (0.3±5.5 mm Hg vs 4.8±5.9 mm Hg, P=.000). The time parameters of UES relaxation between two types of bolus swallows were similar. In solid bolus swallows, the intrabolus pressure (IBP) (13.8±5.1 mm Hg vs 10.9±5.7 mm Hg, P=.000) and LES relaxation time (11.0±2.1 seconds vs 8.7±1.3 seconds, P=.000) were higher. The 4-second integrated relaxation pressure between both bolus swallows was similar.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The function of the UES and LES between solid and liquid bolus swallows is different. Chinese HRM parameters are different from the Chicago Classification (http://www.chictr.org.cn, Number ChiCTR-EOC-15007147).