Clinical predictors of achalasia

Correlation between our symptom-based scoring system and the Eckardt score for assessing patients with esophageal achalasia

PURPOSE

The Eckardt score (ES) is a famous scoring system used for assessing achalasia patients. We studied the correlation between our scoring system and the ES and examined the relationship between each score and the pathophysiology of achalasia.

METHODS

The subjects were 143 patients with diagnosed achalasia. We assessed the frequency and degree of dysphagia, regurgitation (vomiting), and chest pain on a 5-point scale from 0 to 4, with the product of the frequency and degree score defined as each symptom score (0-16). The sum of the three symptom scores was the Total Symptom Score (TSS). We then studied the correlation between the TSS and the ES, including whether these scores reflected the pathophysiology.

RESULTS

The median scores were 20 for TSS and 6 for the ES, indicating a high correlation between the two scores (r = 0.7280, p < 0.0001). A relationship was found between the morphologic type and both scores (TSS: p = 0.002, ES: p = 0.0036). On creating a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the Straight type and each score, the AUC was 0.6740 for TSS and 0.6628 for ES.

CONCLUSIONS

A high positive correlation was found between the TSS and the ES. Both scoring systems reflected the morphologic type well, demonstrating that the TSS was a scoring system comparable to the ES.

Beyond the Eckardt Score: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Esophageal Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and summarize their role in assessing undifferentiated dysphagia and common esophageal disorders, including achalasia, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the subjective nature of swallowing disorders, accurate diagnoses often rely on capturing the patient experience. As a result, the number of PROMs used to characterize esophageal symptoms is increasing with a recent particular emphasis on EoE. Overall, esophageal-focused PROMs are used to interpret patient symptoms and quality of life, diagnosis, and symptom changes over time. There are limitations with each instrument, including factors affecting validity, reliability, accessibility, patient participation, and logistical implementation. PROM instruments can be helpful tools in the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal disorders. Instruments should be chosen based on factors such as target population and setting, including research, clinical, and quality improvement efforts. Future research should address how best to implement PROMs and integrate the obtained data with patient care.

Use of a report card to evaluate outcomes of achalasia surgery: beyond the Eckardt score

BACKGROUND

Achalasia outcome is primarily defined using the Eckardt score with failure recognized as > 3. However, patients experience many changes after myotomy including new onset GERD, swallowing difficulties, and potential need for additional treatment. We aim to devise a comprehensive assessment tool to demonstrate the extent of patient-reported outcomes, objective changes, and need for re-interventions following myotomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of surgically treated primary achalasia patients. We identified 185 patients without prior foregut surgery who underwent either per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) or Heller myotomy from 2005 to 2017. Eight outcome measures in subjective, objective, and interventional categories formulated a global postoperative assessment tool. These outcomes included Eckardt score, Dakkak Dysphagia score, GERD-HRQL score, normalization of pH scores and IRP, esophagitis, timed barium clearance at 5 min, and the most invasive re-intervention performed.

RESULTS

Of 185 patients, achalasia subtypes included Type I = 42 (23%), II = 109 (59%), and III = 34 (18%). Patients underwent minimally invasive myotomy in 114 (62%), POEM in 71 (38%). Median proximal myotomy length was 4 cm (IQR 4-5) and distal 2 cm (IQR 2-2.5). Based on postoperative Eckardt score, 135/145 (93%) had successful treatment of achalasia. But, only 47/104 (45%) reported normal swallowing, and 78/108 (72%) had GERD-HRQL score ≤ 10. Objectively, IRP was normalized in 48/60 (80%), whereas timed barium clearance occurred in 51/84 (61%). No evidence of esophagitis was documented in 82/115 (71%). Postoperative normal DeMeester scores occurred in 38/76 (50%). No additional treatments were required in 110/139 (79%) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Eckardt score alone to assess outcomes after achalasia surgery shows outstanding results. Using patient-reported outcomes, objective measurements, re-intervention rates, organized into a report card provides a more comprehensive and informative view.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Assessment of Uninvestigated Esophageal Dysphagia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Our aim is to review the literature and provide guidelines for the assessment of uninvestigated dysphagia.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified studies on dysphagia. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were discussed and revised via small group meetings, teleconferences, and a web-based platform until consensus was reached by the full group.

RESULTS

The consensus includes 13 statements focused on the role of strategies for the assessment of esophageal dysphagia. In patients presenting with dysphagia, oropharyngeal dysphagia should be identified promptly because of the risk of aspiration. For patients with esophageal dysphagia, history can be used to help differentiate structural from motility disorders and to elicit alarm features. An empiric trial of proton pump inhibitor therapy should be limited to four weeks in patients with esophageal dysphagia who have reflux symptoms and no additional alarm features. For patients with persistent dysphagia, endoscopy, including esophageal biopsy, was recommended over barium esophagram for the assessment of structural and mucosal esophageal disease. Barium esophagram may be useful when the availability of endoscopy is limited. Esophageal manometry was recommended for diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders, and high-resolution was recommended over conventional manometry.

CONCLUSIONS

Once oropharyngeal dysphagia is ruled out, patients with symptoms of esophageal dysphagia should be assessed by history and physical examination, followed by endoscopy to identify structural and inflammatory lesions. If these are ruled out, then manometry is recommended for the diagnosis of esophageal dysmotility.

Health-related quality of life and physiological measurements in achalasia

The diagnosis of achalasia is generally made based on patient symptoms, the appearance of the esophagus on endoscopy and barium esophagogram, and esophageal manometry. In addition, timed barium esophagography (TBE) can give useful information on the clearance of liquid barium over a 10 minute period and the passage of a barium tablet. What is unclear is how well these physiological measurements of esophageal function correlate with patient-perceived health-related quality of life. Our aim was to assess whether objective physiological measurements of high-resolution manometry (HRM) and TBE will correlate with quantitative achalasia-related health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurements. Patients referred for possible surgical treatment of achalasia were assessed preoperatively in the following manner. A gastroenterologist and surgeon clinically evaluated all patients. In addition to history and physical examination, patients underwent further testing with TBE, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and HRM. The diagnosis of achalasia was based on HRM. Prior to surgical treatment, patients completed the 'Measure of Achalasia Disease Severity' (ADS) which is a validated instrument assessing the severity of achalasia-associated HRQoL. Hundred and twenty patients were included in this study. The mean ADS score was 24.9 ± 3.6. There was no statistically significant difference in score among the achalasia types: I, 24.0 ± 4.3; II, 25.4 ± 3.2; III, 24.3 ± 4.6. Using linear regression analysis, there was no statistically significant correlation between ADS scores and TBE column height or width at 1 and 5 minutes. There was no statistically significant difference between patients who could pass a 13 mm barium tablet (26.4 ± 3.4) and those who could not (24.9 ± 3.6). There was no statistically significant correlation between LES pressure and IRP with ADS scores. There is poor correlation between patient-perceived health-related quality of life and objective physiological measurements of achalasia. Therefore, the assessment of treatment outcomes of achalasia will need to require both an assessment of esophageal physiology as well as HRQoL.

Treatment choices and outcomes of patients with manometrically diagnosed achalasia

This prospective population-based study was designed to evaluate treatment choices in patients with new manometrically diagnosed achalasia and their outcomes. Patients referred to the esophageal function laboratory were enrolled after a new manometric diagnosis of achalasia. Patients completed an initial achalasia symptom score validated questionnaire on their symptom severity, duration, treatment pre-diagnosis and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form (SF-36) survey. Treatment decisions were made by the referring physician and the patient. Follow-up questionnaires were completed every 3 months for 1 year. Patients who chose not to undergo treatment at 1-year follow-up completed another questionnaire after 5 years. Between January 2004 and January 2005, 83 of 124 eligible patients were enrolled. Heller myotomy was performed on 31 patients, three patients received botulinum toxin injections, and 25 patients received 29 pneumatic balloon dilatations. Twenty-four patients chose to receive no treatment. Following treatment, patients treated with surgery, dilatation and botulinum toxin had an average improvement in achalasia symptom score of 23 +/- 12.2, 17 +/- 10.9, and 9 +/- 14, respectively. Patients receiving no treatment had worsening symptoms with a symptom score change of -3.5 +/- 11.4. Surgery and dilatation resulted in significant improvement (P < 0.01) relative to no treatment. In univariate logistic regression, symptom severity score (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00 to 1.08), sphincter tone (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09), difficulty swallowing liquids (OR 3.21, 95% 1.15 to 8.99), waking from sleep (OR 2.75, 95% 1.00 to 7.61), and weight loss (OR 5.99, 95% CI 1.93 to 18.58) were all significant in predicting that patients would select treatment. In the multivariate analysis, older age (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09) and weight loss (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 15.2) were statistically significant for undergoing treatment. At 5 years, five (21%) of those who had initially declined treatment at 1 year ultimately chose a treatment. Patients who finally chose Heller myotomy had lower mental component dimension scores on the SF-36 at 1 year than those who did not. This study shows that almost one third of patients with manometrically diagnosed achalasia choose not to undergo treatment within 1 year of their diagnosis. Patients who are more symptomatic appear to be more likely to undergo treatment by univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, increasing age and weight loss are predictive of those who will undergo treatment, with weight loss having the greatest influence. Patients who choose not to undergo treatment make lifestyle changes to maintain their quality of life, and only a minority of them ultimately undergo treatment.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Achalasia

OPINION STATEMENT

The activity of a particular esophageal disease, such as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) or achalasia, can be evaluated using clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measures assessing various endoscopic, histologic, functional, and laboratory findings, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are those that are designed to be self-reported by patients. Commonly used PRO instruments include those that assess symptom severity, health-related quality of life, "general" quality of life, or health status. Regulatory authorities increasingly rely on PRO measures to support labeling claims for drug development. Validated PRO measures for various esophageal diseases are needed in order to unify and standardize the way disease activity is assessed, define clinically meaningful endpoints for use in interventional and observational studies, compare the efficacy/effectiveness of various therapies, and optimize therapeutic algorithms for management of these diseases. This article reviews commonly used PRO instruments designed to assess symptom severity and quality of life in adult patients with EoE and achalasia.

Megaesophagus in a line of transgenic rats: a model of achalasia

Megaesophagus is defined as the abnormal enlargement or dilatation of the esophagus, characterized by a lack of normal contraction of the esophageal walls. This is called achalasia when associated with reduced or no relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). To date, there are few naturally occurring models for this disease. A colony of transgenic (Pvrl3-Cre) rats presented with megaesophagus at 3 to 4 months of age; further breeding studies revealed a prevalence of 90% of transgene-positive animals having megaesophagus. Affected rats could be maintained on a total liquid diet long term and were shown to display the classic features of dilated esophagus, closed lower esophageal sphincter, and abnormal contractions on contrast radiography and fluoroscopy. Histologically, the findings of muscle degeneration, inflammation, and a reduced number of myenteric ganglia in the esophagus combined with ultrastructural lesions of muscle fiber disarray and mitochondrial changes in the striated muscle of these animals closely mimic that seen in the human condition. Muscle contractile studies looking at the response of the lower esophageal sphincter and fundus to electrical field stimulation, sodium nitroprusside, and L-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester also demonstrate the similarity between megaesophagus in the transgenic rats and patients with achalasia. No primary cause for megaesophagus was found, but the close parallel to the human form of the disease, as well as ease of care and manipulation of these rats, makes this a suitable model to better understand the etiology of achalasia as well as study new management and treatment options for this incurable condition.

Achalasia cardia subtyping by high-resolution manometry predicts the therapeutic outcome of pneumatic balloon dilatation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

High-resolution manometry (HRM) with pressure topography is used to subtype achalasia cardia, which has therapeutic implications. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics, manometric variables and treatment outcomes among the achalasia subtypes based on the HRM findings.

METHODS

The patients who underwent HRM at the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad between January 2008 and January 2009 were enrolled. The patients with achalasia were categorized into 3 subtypes: type I - achalasia with minimum esophageal pressurization, type II - achalasia with esophageal compression and type III - achalasia with spasm. The clinical and manometric variables and treatment outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine out of the 900 patients who underwent HRM were diagnosed as achalasia cardia. Fifty-one patients with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months were included. Types I and II achalasia were diagnosed in 24 patients each and 3 patients were diagnosed as type III achalasia. Dysphagia and regurgitation were the main presenting symptoms in patients with types I and II achalasia. Patients with type III achalasia had high basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure and maximal esophageal pressurization when compared to types I and II. Most patients underwent pneumatic dilatation (type I, 22/24; type II, 20/24; type III, 3/3). Patients with type II had the best response to pneumatic dilatation (18/20, 90.0%) compared to types I (14/22, 63.3%) and III (1/3, 33.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The type II achalasia cardia showed the best response to pneumatic dilatation.