Ineffective motility is not a marker for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Modified Delphi Study

GOALS

Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).

BACKGROUND

IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging.

STUDY

Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process.

RESULTS

All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2's virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient's presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning.

CONCLUSION

Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

Esophageal mucosal sensory nerves and potential mechanoreceptors in patients with ineffective esophageal motility

BACKGROUND

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common motility disorder. However, little is known about its pathophysiology. Vagal afferent nerves convey esophageal intraluminal bolus information to solitary nucleus, which is likely to be involved with esophageal primary and secondary peristalsis (SP). We hypothesized that altered mucosal sensory afferents underlie the pathogenesis of IEM.

METHODS

We prospectively collected esophageal biopsies from 38 patients with proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux symptoms from January to December 2019. All patients underwent high-resolution manometry for the evaluation of primary and secondary peristalsis, and off-PPI 24-h impedance-pH studies. Biopsies were analyzed using immunohistochemistry for identification of calcitonin gene-related peptide-immunoreactive (CGRP-IR) nerves and qPCR for mRNA expression of potential mechanoreceptors.

KEY RESULTS

Overall 32 patients were finally analyzed which consisted of 11 patients with normal motility and 21 patients with IEM. The position of mucosal CGRP-IR nerves from the esophageal lumen did not differ between the two groups (the proximal esophagus (p = 0.52), the mid-esophagus (p = 0.92), the distal esophagus (p = 0.29)) with the similar reflux profile. No difference was seen in the position of CGRP-IR nerves between patients with successful triggering of SP and those unable to trigger SP. There was also no difference in mRNA expression of each potential mechanoreceptors (TRPA1, TRPV1, TRPV4, ASIC1, ASIC3) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Our study showed that mucosal sensory afferents nerve position and mRNA expression of potential mechanoreceptors did not correlate to weak esophageal contraction.

Impact of ineffective esophageal motility on chemical clearance in patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common manometric abnormality in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the impact of IEM on esophageal chemical clearance has not been fully investigated. This study aimed to determine the impact of IEM on esophageal chemical clearance in patients with GERD. A total of 369 patients with GERD symptoms who underwent upper endoscopy and high-resolution manometry (HRM) test were retrospectively analyzed. The relationship between IEM and erosive esophagitis was examined. In addition, the impact of IEM on chemical clearance was examined in patients who underwent an additional combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) test. Esophageal chemical clearance capability was evaluated via postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and acid clearance time (ACT). Of 369 patients, 181 (49.1%) had esophageal motility disorders, of which 78 (21.1%) had IEM. The proportion of IEM patients in those with erosive esophagitis and those without were 16.2% and 21.7%, respectively, and no significant difference was observed (P = 0.53). After excluding patients other than those with IEM and normal esophageal motility, 64 subsequently underwent MII-pH test. The median values of the PSPW index in the IEM and normal esophageal motility group were 11.1% (4.2%-20.0%) and 17.1% (9.8%-30.6%), respectively. The PSPW index was significantly lower in the IEM group than in the normal esophageal motility group (P < 0.05). The median ACT values in the IEM group and normal esophageal motility group were 125.5 (54.0-183.5) seconds and 60.0 (27.2-105.7) seconds, respectively. The ACT was significantly longer in the IEM group than in the normal esophageal motility group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, IEM was found to be associated with chemical clearance dysfunction as measured against the PSPW index and ACT. As this condition could be a risk factor for GERD, future treatments should be developed with a focus on chemical clearance.

Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and pharmacological treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease

INTRODUCTION

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a highly prevalent, chronic, relapsing disorder, whose knowledge has increased in last years thanks to the advent of new sophisticated techniques, such as 24-h impedance-pH monitoring and high-resolution manometry, for the study of esophageal functions.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of our advancements in understanding the complex pathophysiology, improving the diagnosis and defining the modern pharmacological therapeutic approach to GERD.

EXPERT OPINION

The growing clinical application of impedance-pH testing has allowed us to know the diversity of patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), who nowadays represent about 70% of the whole population with reflux symptoms. We have realized that NERD has to be considered as an umbrella term covering various subgroups with different pathophysiologies. The development of new impedance metrics, in particular mean nocturnal baseline impedance, seems to be promising in the improvement of the diagnostic process of this disease. There are no particularly innovative features in the pharmacological therapy of GERD, unless the interest toward drugs is able to increase the defense properties of esophageal mucosa and/or its protection. These compounds can be of help in combination with proton pump inhibitors in NERD patients with partial response to antisecretory drugs alone.

High-Resolution Manometry Diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility Is Associated with Higher Reflux Burden

INTRODUCTION

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most commonly diagnosed abnormality on high-resolution manometry (HRM). However, the clinical significance of IEM and associated reflux burden remains unclear.

AIM

Our primary aim was to compare reflux patterns between IEM versus normal motility on HRM.

METHODS

HRM and reflux studies in patients with IEM and normal motility were retrospectively reviewed. Esophageal pressure topography parameters, reflux variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires were explored.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients with IEM were explored. Of these, 146 underwent reflux monitoring. Additionally, 100 patients with normal HRM all of whom had undergone reflux monitoring were included. IEM patients were more likely to have an abnormal number of reflux events compared to normal (22.7% vs. 9.0%, p < 0.01). Including only off-proton pump inhibitor (PPI) testing, IEM patients had higher mean total acid exposure time (AET) and total reflux events compared to normal motility (p = 0.02). Within IEM patients, higher AET modestly correlated with increased percentage of impaired swallows. Increased reflux events modestly correlated with higher impaired swallows and decreased lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure. Reflux burden increased with higher esophagogastric junction (EGJ) subtype, driven mostly by subtype III, although there was no difference in the distribution of EGJ subtypes between the IEM and normal HRM cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HRM diagnosis of IEM may be more prone to acid reflux while off-PPI and non-acid reflux while on-PPI. Reflux burden appears to be worse in IEM patients who have lower resting LES pressure, higher EGJ subtype, or higher percentage of impaired swallows.

In ineffective esophageal motility, failed swallows are more functionally relevant than weak swallows

BACKGROUND

Esophageal pressure topography (EPT) diagnosis of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) can be non-specific with unclear clinical significance.

AIMS

To determine whether peristaltic vigor or lower esophageal sphincter (LES) integrity is associated with poor clearance and acid reflux in IEM.

METHODS

Bolus clearance on high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) and available reflux studies in patients with IEM were retrospectively reviewed. Bolus clearance was assessed using both line tracing and colored contour methods on HRIM. EPT parameters, bolus clearance, and acid reflux variables were explored.

KEY RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients with IEM were included. Bolus clearance occurred in 71% of all swallows, and 55.7% of patients had complete bolus transit (CBT, bolus clearance in ≥80% of swallows). Bolus clearance was impaired in swallows with distal contractile integral (DCI) <100 mmHg•cm•s compared to DCI 100-450 (0.43 vs 0.79, P < .0001). A cutoff at DCI 100 mmHg•cm•s was associated with clearance with an accuracy of 76% compared to 49% at DCI 450 (P = .0001 for both). A median DCI <100 was associated with a higher Eckardt score (9 vs 3, P = .03), and on reflux testing available in 47 patients, with abnormal acid exposure time (P = .002). Peristaltic reserve (PR) defined as (DCI of multiple rapid swallow/median DCI of wet swallows), integrated relaxation pressure, and resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure were not associated with clearance or acid exposure.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Failed peristalsis, as defined by DCI <100 mmHg•cm•s, is associated with impaired bolus clearance and more severe dysphagia in IEM, and likely abnormal acid exposure.

Sleep and Nocturnal Gastroesophageal Reflux: An Update

Nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux has been associated with poor sleep quality. Normal physiological adaptations of the aerodigestive system to sleep prolong and intensify nocturnal reflux events. This occurrence leads to sleep disruption, as well as to esophageal, laryngeal, and laryngopharyngeal reflux. Controversy exists on whether OSA and nocturnal reflux are causally linked or merely associated because of shared risk factors. Advances in diagnostic technology have provided new insights into gastroesophageal reflux and the mechanisms of nocturnal reflux during sleep. This update reviews new data on causal links between sleep and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

The Effect of Ineffective Esophageal Motility on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common gastrointestinal motility disorder. Studies have reported that IEM is related to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the relationship between IEM and GERD remains uncertain. This study aims to clarify this relationship retrospectively.

METHODS

We analyzed 195 subjects who underwent high-resolution manometry between January 2011 and September 2016. Of these subjects, 72 had normal esophageal motility (NEM) and 26 had IEM. We investigated differences in the clinical characteristics, severity and duration of GERD symptoms, and comorbid extra-esophageal symptoms of the subjects. Comorbid extra-esophageal symptoms were assessed with the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale questionnaire. Investigation-defined GERD was diagnosed when erosive esophagitis or abnormal multichannel intraluminal impedance was present.

RESULTS

We found no significant difference in the prevalence of IEM between patients with and without GERD (37.5 and 21.1%, respectively; p = 0.174). There were no differences in age, gender, body mass index, presence of hiatal hernia, or duration of GERD between the groups. Compared to patients with NEM, those with IEM were significantly less likely to have comorbid extra-esophageal symptoms (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There is no association between IEM and GERD.

Manometric Subtypes of Ineffective Esophageal Motility

Objectives:

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is characterized by well-defined manometric criteria. However, much variation exists within the diagnosis: Some patients exhibit exactly the required five weak swallows to make the diagnosis. Others show consistently ineffective swallows with total absence of any normal swallow. “We hypothesize” there are two different manometric subtypes of IEM; IEM Alternans (IEM-A) and IEM Persistens (IEM-P).

Methods:

A total of 231 IEM patients were identified by high-resolution manometry (HRM). IEM defined by distal contractile integral (DCI) <450 mm Hg/s/cm in ≥50% of test swallows. Abnormal reflux study was defined by excess total number of reflux episodes, abnormal esophageal acid exposure, or positive symptom association.

Results:

A total of 195 (84%) patients had IEM-A and 36 (16%) had IEM-P. A striking gender difference with 34% of IEM-A being males compared to 53% of IEM-P. (P=0.03). Mean age of IEM-P (59.6 years+/−13.1) was greater than IEM-A (55.5 years+/−13.6) (P=0.04). Mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure was significantly lower in IEM-P (20.8 mm Hg+/−1.4) than IEM-A (29 mm Hg+/−1.2) (P=0.002). There was no difference in LES-integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), bolus transit, or manometric presence of hiatal hernia between the two groups. Out of 146, 89 (61%) patients had abnormal reflux study. Esophageal acid exposure in upright position was significantly higher in IEM-P than IEM-A (3.5 vs. 1.7%, P=0.04). Poor gastric acid control on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was more prevalent among IEM-P patients (58%) than IEM-A (27%) (P=0.007). In subgroup analysis of 41 IEM patients with dysphagia, DCI for liquid swallows was significantly lower in IEM-P (111+/−142 mm Hg/s/cm) compared to IEM-A (421+/−502 mm Hg/s/cm) (P=0.04), lower mean LES resting pressure in IEM-P (16.6+/−9 mm Hg) than IEM-A (31.7+/−18 mm Hg) (P=0.01).

Conclusions:

There are two distinct manometric IEM subtypes; IEM-P with an older male predominance, more advanced reflux disease, weaker LES, and worse response to PPI; likely a more advanced manifestation than IEM-A. However, the question if there are different etiologies underlying the two subtypes remains to be answered.

Esophageal testing: What we have so far

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. In the last few decades, new technologies have evolved and have been applied to the functional study of the esophagus, allowing for the improvement of our knowledge of the pathophysiology of GERD. High-resolution manometry (HRM) permits greater understanding of the function of the esophagogastric junction and the risks associated with hiatal hernia. Moreover, HRM has been found to be more reproducible and sensitive than conventional water-perfused manometry to detect the presence of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. Esophageal 24-h pH-metry with or without combined impedance is usually performed in patients with negative endoscopy and reflux symptoms who have a poor response to anti-reflux medical therapy to assess esophageal acid exposure and symptom-reflux correlations. In particular, esophageal 24-h impedance and pH monitoring can detect acid and non-acid reflux events. EndoFLIP is a recent technique poorly applied in clinical practice, although it provides a large amount of information about the esophagogastric junction. In the coming years, laryngopharyngeal symptoms could be evaluated with up and coming non-invasive or minimally invasive techniques, such as pepsin detection in saliva or pharyngeal pH-metry. Future studies are required of these techniques to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy and usefulness, although the available data are promising.

Multiple Rapid Swallow Maneuver Enhances the Clinical Utility of High-Resolution Manometry in Patients Showing Ineffective Esophageal Motility

The clinical significance of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) together with multiple rapid swallow (MRS) has not been yet evaluated in the Chicago Classification v3.0. This study evaluated the adjunctive role of MRS in IEM and determined the criteria of abnormal MRS to maximize the utility of IEM. We analyzed 186 patients showing IEM or normal esophageal motility (NEM), who underwent esophageal high-resolution impedance-manometry for esophageal symptoms. Two different criteria for abnormal MRS were applied to IEM subjects, resulting in 2 corresponding subgroups: IEM-A when distal contractile integral (DCI) ratio between an average wet swallows and MRS contraction was < 1 and IEM-B when MRS contraction DCI was <450 mm Hg-s-cm. One IEM subject inadequately performed MRS. Among the remaining 52 IEM subjects, 18 (34.6%) were classified into IEM-A and 23 (44.2%) into IEM-B. IEM subjects showed less complete bolus transit (median 0.0%, interquartile range 0.0-20.0% vs 60.0%, 30.0-80.0; P < 0.001) resulting in higher impaired bolus transit than NEM subjects (98.1% vs 66.9%, P = 0.001). IEM-B subjects showed additionally higher pathologic bolus exposure than NEM subjects (55.6% vs 29.3%, P = 0.001), whereas IEM-A subjects could not. Although IEM-B subjects had the highest prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease among the subjects groups, it did not reach statistical significance. In conclusion, IEM patients with abnormal MRS contraction have an increased risk of prolonged bolus clearance, poor bolus transit, and pathologic bolus exposure. IEM patients need to be assessed concerning whether MRS contraction DCI is < 450 mm Hg-s-cm to segregate clinically relevant patients.

Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease: new understanding in a new era

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has increased in the last decades and it is now one of the most common chronic diseases. Throughout time our insight in the pathophysiology of GERD has been characterized by remarkable back and forth swings, often prompted by new investigational techniques. Even today, the pathophysiology of GERD is not fully understood but it is now recognized to be a multifactorial disease. Among the factors that have been shown to be involved in the provocation or increase of reflux, are sliding hiatus hernia, low lower esophageal sphincter pressure, transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation, the acid pocket, obesity, increased distensibility of the esophagogastric junction, prolonged esophageal clearance, and delayed gastric emptying. Moreover, multiple mechanisms influence the perception of GERD symptoms, such as the acidity of the refluxate, its proximal extent, the presence of gas in the refluxate, duodenogastroesophageal reflux, longitudinal muscle contraction, mucosal integrity, and peripheral and central sensitization. Understanding the pathophysiology of GERD is important for future targets for therapy as proton pump inhibitor-refractory GERD symptoms remain a common problem.

PURPOSE

In this review we provide an overview of the mechanisms leading to reflux and the factors influencing perception, in the light of historical developments. It is clear that further research remains necessary despite the recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of GERD.

Predictive value of routine esophageal high-resolution manometry for gastro-esophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Using conventional manometry, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) was associated with a reduced lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and impaired peristalsis. However, with a large overlap between GERD patients and controls, these findings are of limited clinical relevance. It is uncertain whether the more detailed information of high-resolution manometry (HRM) can discriminate GERD patients. Therefore, we aimed to determine to which extent HRM findings can predict GERD.

METHODS

HRM measurements in 69 patients with GERD and 40 healthy subjects were compared and the predictive value of HRM for the diagnosis of GERD was explored.

KEY RESULTS

GERD patients had a significantly lower contraction amplitude (55 vs 64 mmHg; p = 0.045) and basal LES pressure (10 vs 13.2 mmHg; p = 0.034) than healthy controls. GERD patients more often had a hiatal hernia than healthy subjects (30% vs 7%; p = 0.005). Patients with reflux esophagitis had a lower DCI than patients without reflux esophagitis (558 vs 782 mmHg cm s; p = 0.045). No significant difference was seen in contractile front velocity, distal latency, number of peristaltic breaks, residual LES pressure and LES length. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, both esophagogastric junction type I (OR 4.971; 95% CI 1.33-18.59; p = 0.017) and mean wave amplitude (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90-0.98; p = 0.013) were found to be independent predictors of GERD. However, the sensitivity and specificity of these findings were low.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Hiatal hernia, low contraction amplitude and LES pressure are associated with GERD, but do not predict the disease with sufficient accuracy. Routine esophageal HRM can therefore not be used to distinguish GERD patients from healthy subjects.

Weak peristalsis with large breaks in chronic cough: association with poor esophageal clearance

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux plays an important role in chronic cough (CC). Whether disturbed esophageal motility contributes to increased esophageal reflux exposure or interferes with swallowed bolus clearance is unclear. This study used high resolution esophageal manometry and impedance (HRIM) together with Chicago Classification, and 24-h impedance pH (MII/pH) to address these questions in patients with CC compared with heartburn (HB).

METHODS

A retrospective review of 32 patients with CC (mean age 57 [95% CI: 52-62] years) and 32 patients with symptoms of HB (55 [52-62] years) referred for HRIM and MII/pH between September 2012 and September 2013 was undertaken.

KEY RESULTS

Weak peristalsis with large breaks (WPLBs) was observed in 34% of CC patients compared with only 12% of HB patients (p = 0.027). Pathological acid exposure time (AET) was identified in 81% of CC patients with WPLBs compared with 29% without (p = 0.011). Increased AET was associated with prolonged clearance time of refluxed events (p = 0.006) rather than increased number of events. AET correlated with the percentage of peristaltic events with large breaks in CC (ρ = 0.467, p = 0.007). Similar data were obtained for total bolus (acid and non-acid) exposure time. Only one of the CC patients with WPLBs exhibited complete bolus transit (CBT) on swallowing compared with 81% without WPLBs (p < 0.001). Moreover, the percentage of peristaltic events associated with CBT negatively correlated with the percentage of peristaltic events with large breaks (r = -0.653, p < 0.001) in CC.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

One-third of CC patients exhibit WPLBs, which directly impacts on clearance of refluxed events and bolus's swallowed. These observations may have important implications for esophageal-bronchial interaction in CC.

Pathophysiology of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a role for mucosa integrity?

BACKGROUND

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is very prevalent and has a high burden on health security system costs. Nevertheless, pathophysiology is complex and not well-understood. Several mechanisms have been proposed: decreased salivation, impaired esophageal clearance, decreased lower esophageal sphincter pressure resting tone, presence of hiatal hernia, increased number of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs), increased acid, and pepsin secretion, pyloric incompetence provoking duodeno-gastro-esophageal reflux of bile acids and trypsin. Independent of the relevance of each mechanism, the ultimate phenomenon is that mucosal epithelium is exposed for a longer time to agents as acid and pepsin or is in contact to luminal agents not commonly present in gastric refluxate as trypsin or bile acids. This leads to a visible damage of the epithelium (erosive esophagitis -EE) or impairing mucosal integrity without any sign of macroscopic alteration as occurs in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD). Luminal factors are not the only responsible for such impairment; more recent data indicate that endogenous factors may also play a role.

PURPOSE

This review will update the most recent findings on the putative pathophysiological mechanisms and specially will focus on the role of esophageal mucosal integrity in GERD. Methodologies used for the evaluation of mucosal integrity, its relevance in EE and NERD, its involvement in symptoms perception and the effect of luminal and endogenous factors will be discussed.

Esophageal motility, vagal function and gastroesophageal reflux in a cohort of adult asthmatics

BACKGROUND

Asthmatics are known to have esophageal hypomotility. Vagal hypofunction and prolonged intra-esophageal acidification cause esophageal hypomotility. The contribution of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and vagal function to esophageal motility in asthmatics is unclear. We studied the relationship between esophageal motility, GER and vagal function in a cohort of adult asthmatics.

METHODS

Thirty mild, stable asthmatics (ATS criteria) and 30 healthy volunteers underwent 24-hour ambulatory esophageal monitoring, manometry, autonomic function testing and GER symptom assessment. 27 asthmatics underwent gastroscopy. A vagal function score calculated from 3 tests (valsalva maneuver, heart rate response to deep breathing and to standing from supine position) was correlated with esophageal function parameters.

RESULTS

Asthmatics (mean age 34.8 (SD 8.4), 60% female) had more frequent GERD symptoms than controls (mean age 30.9 (SD 7.7), 50% female). 10/27 asthmatics had esophageal mucosal damage, 22 showed hypervagal response, none had a hyperadrenergic response. 14 asthmatics had ineffective esophageal motility. Higher GERD-score asthmatics had significantly fewer peristaltic and more simultaneous contractions than controls, and higher esophageal acid contact times than those with lower scores. All reflux parameters were significantly higher and acid clearance time prolonged in asthmatics than controls (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). There was no correlation between vagal function score and esophageal function parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

A cohort of adult asthmatics was found to have peristaltic dysfunction and pathological GER, but otherwise normal esophageal motility. The peristaltic dysfunction seems to be associated with vagal hyperreactivity rather than vagal hypofunction.

Esophageal motility in children with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Motility abnormalities in adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) include nontransmitted contractions, reduced distal esophageal contraction amplitude, and simultaneous contractions. Information on esophageal body motility in children with GERD is scarce. Our aim was to study esophageal motility patterns in children with GERD, taking into account the presence of anatomical abnormalities and neurological impairment, the effect of age on esophageal motility in GERD, and the relation between esophageal manometry and GERD severity parameters (acid exposure and presence of esophagitis).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive children referred for severe GER(D) symptoms underwent a barium swallow, upper endoscopy, pH monitoring, and stationary water-perfused esophageal manometry.

RESULTS

Mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and velocity of propagation in the proximal and distal esophagus decreased with age in this group of children with GERD (all P < 0.01). Severely disturbed esophageal motility was found in children with previous esophageal atresia. Patients with psychomotor retardation had significantly lower occurrence of peristaltic waves (94% +/- 21% vs 79% +/- 38%; P = 0.001), distal propagation velocity (0.8 +/- 0.4 vs 0.6 +/- 0.5 cm/s; P = 0.05), and distal contraction duration (3.1 +/- 0.8 vs 3.4 +/- 1 seconds; P = 0.05). None of the manometric characteristics differed between patients with normal or abnormal esophageal pH monitoring or with or without erosive esophagitis.

CONCLUSIONS

LES pressure and esophageal velocity decreased with increasing age. Esophageal manometry is severely impaired in children with esophageal atresia and psychomotor retardation. No specific esophageal motor abnormalities related to the presence of endoscopic esophagitis or abnormal pH monitoring were found.

The clinical utility of esophageal manometry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Esophageal manometry (EM) is performed to evaluate symptoms of chest pain and dysphagia, although its clinical utility is not known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of EM by determining whether EM provides new information, changes diagnoses, or alters patient management.

METHODS

Before performing EM, referring providers noted indications for the test, symptoms, previous tests performed, and medication use. After EM was completed, a follow-up questionnaire ascertained whether EM provided new information or changed the patient's diagnosis or management plan. Patients provided demographic information.

RESULTS

During a 12-month period, 569 EMs were performed and 444 were available for inclusion; 286 fully completed questionnaires were returned (64%) and are the basis for this analysis. The mean age (+/-SD) at the time of manometry was 52 (+/-15) years; 58% were women; 98% were white. EM was requested to assist placement of a pH measuring device (34%), and to evaluate symptoms of dysphagia (29%), chest pain (12%), or acid reflux (11%). Overall, 64% of EM were abnormal; 81% in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients, 74% in dysphagia, and 59% in chest pain. New information was obtained in 87% of patients, whereas a change in diagnosis occurred in 30% of patients, and management changed in 44% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EM is a clinically useful test because it frequently provides new information and often changes patient diagnosis and management. The clinical utility of EM is greatest in patients with dysphagia.

Esophageal motility testing: impedance-based transit measurement and high-resolution manometry

Esophageal function tests are widely used, not only to obtain insight into esophageal physiology and pathophysiology in a research setting, but also to diagnose esophageal motor disorders in patients with symptoms such as dysphagia and chest pain. While esophageal function testing has long been considered almost synonymous with manometry, recently new techniques such as impedance measurement and high-resolution manometry have emerged. With impedance monitoring the transit of a bolus through the esophagus can be studied without the use of ionizing radiation. High-resolution manometry offers a highly detailed and comprehensive view of esophageal pressure patterns. Multichannel high resolution manometry with color plotting facilitates positioning of the catheter and interpretation of the tracings. In this article the development, clinical usefulness, and indications of these new tests are discussed.

Is ineffective esophageal motility associated with gastropharyngeal reflux disease?

AIM: To evaluate the association between ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and gastropharyngeal reflux disease (GPRD) in patients who underwent ambulatory 24-h dual-probe pH monitoring for the evaluation of supraesophageal symptoms.

METHODS: A total of 632 patients who underwent endoscopy, esophageal manometry and ambulatory 24-h dual-pH monitoring due to supraesophageal symptoms (e.g. globus, hoarseness, or cough) were enrolled. Of them, we selected the patients who had normal esophageal motility and IEM. The endoscopy and ambulatory pH monitoring findings were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: A total of 264 patients with normal esophageal motility and 195 patients with the diagnosis of IEM were included in this study. There was no difference in the frequency of reflux esophagitis and hiatal hernia between the two groups. All the variables showing gastroesophageal reflux and gastropharyngeal reflux were not different between the two groups. The frequency of GERD and GPRD, as defined by ambulatory pH monitoring, was not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: There was no association between IEM and GPRD as well as between IEM and GERD. IEM alone cannot be considered as a definitive marker for reflux disease.

Is all ineffective esophageal motility the same? A clinical and high-frequency intraluminal US study

BACKGROUND

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is characterized by frequent hypotensive or failed peristaltic contractions; its pathophysiology is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether patients with IEM because of GERD would differ from patients with other etiologies of IEM on the basis of esophageal-muscle thickness measured by high-frequency intraluminal US (HFIUS).

DESIGN

Single-center prospective study.

SETTING

Academic medical center; from January 2004 to June 2005.

SUBJECTS

A total of 46 patients who were newly diagnosed with IEM were classified into 2 groups: GERD-related IEM (group I, n = 26) and non-GERD-related IEM (group II, n = 20) on the basis of the presence of reflux esophagitis and/or pathologic acid exposure by 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. In addition, 16 asymptomatic healthy volunteers with no reflux esophagitis, normal manometric finding, and normal level of acid exposure were included as controls.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

We compared the clinical characteristics, including a predominant principal esophageal symptom and the results from HFIUS among the control, GERD-related IEM (group I), and non-GERD-related IEM (group II) groups.

RESULTS

The proportion of typical reflux symptom as a predominant symptom was higher in group I (66%) than in group II (25%). Muscle thickness was greater in group II than in group I and the control group during both the baseline rest period and the peak of contraction period at all levels of the middle of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), and 3 cm and 9 cm above the LES (respectively) (P < .05).

LIMITATION

The limitation was the small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with non-GERD-related IEM had increased muscle thickness on HFIUS compared with patients with GERD-related IEM and the controls. Based on this study, IEM is not necessarily indicative of GERD.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease in morbid obesity: the effect of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common condition in obesity. The impact of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) on GERD is poorly known. We studied the effect of the RYGBP on GERD in patients with morbid obesity (MO).

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients with MO (BMI > 40 kg/m(2)) were studied before and 6 months after RYGBP. GERD symptoms were evaluated with Carlsson-Dent questionnaire (CDQ). All the patients underwent esophageal manometry and ambulatory 24-h pH-metry. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables, and Wilcoxon test was used for numerical variables. A p value under 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There were 16 women (80%) and 4 men (20%) with mean age 38.9 +/- 6.9 years included in this study. BMI was 48.5 +/- 6.2 kg/m(2) and 33.2 +/- 4.5 kg/m(2) before and after RYGBP, respectively. Mean weight reduction was 42.5 +/- 9.7 kg (p < 0.001). Reflux symptoms measured by CDQ and esophageal acid exposure improved significantly after RYGBP. The percentage of time of pH < 4 was 10.7 +/- 6.7 before and 1.6 +/- 1.2 after the surgical procedure (p < 0.001). LES basal pressure before and after the RYGBP was 18 +/- 11 and 20.1 +/- 5.6 mmHg (p = 0.372), and the esophageal body amplitude was 104.2 +/- 47.2 and 75.1 +/- 36.2 mmHg, respectively (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

RYGBP improves GERD symptoms and reduces esophageal acid exposure in patients with MO.

Spasm, nutcracker, and IEM: real or manometry findings?

In 1987, Richter and colleagues published the results of an esophageal motility study conducted on 95 normal healthy volunteers between the ages of 22 and 79. In accordance with these results, abnormal esophageal motility was defined on the basis of the percentage of manometric normal, ineffective, and simultaneous swallows and on lower esophageal sphincter dynamics during liquid swallows. For example, Richter and colleagues found that the mean amplitude of contraction in the distal body of the esophagus >180 mm Hg in association with wet swallows was above the 95% confidence interval of normal. Richter's study also showed a wide variation among individuals and that the mean distal esophageal contractile amplitude increased with age without sex predominance. Likewise, as no subjects had >20% simultaneous contractions (though a considerable number, 4%, had 10% simultaneous contractions), esophageal spasm was defined at the >20% mark.

High-resolution manometry

Recently, high-resolution oesophageal manometry was added to the armamentarium of researchers and gastroenterologists. Current studies suggest that the yield of high-resolution oesophageal manometry is higher than that of conventional pull-through manometry and is at least comparable to that of sleeve sensor manometry. Probably the most important advantage of solid-state high-resolution manometry is that it makes oesophageal manometry faster and easier to perform. Topographic plotting of high-resolution manometry signals facilitates their interpretation. It is concluded that high-resolution manometry is a promising technique for the evaluation of oesophageal motor function. Further studies will have to determine whether high-resolution manometry is superior to conventional manometry in the diagnostic work-up of patients with oesophageal symptoms.

High-resolution manometry of the esophagus: more than a colorful view on esophageal motility?

Since the introduction of pressure measurement of the esophagus, there has been a stepwise improvement in manometric techniques and the recognition of esophageal manometry as a useful tool to evaluate esophageal function in clinical practice. The newest development in this field is high-resolution manometry of the esophagus. In this review, we will briefly discuss the indications for esophageal manometry and we will focus on the development of the technique of high-resolution manometry and the new insights that were obtained by using this emerging tool. We conclude that high-resolution esophageal manometry with spatiotemporal plotting of signals is a valuable research tool. Clinically, the solid-state high-resolution technique is attractive because it makes it easy to perform a high-quality manometric test. However, future studies will have to determine whether the yield of the technique is higher than that of conventional manometry.

Relevance of ineffective esophageal motility and hyperactive acid sensitization in patients with gastroesophageal reflux

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Esophageal motor abnormalities including ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and visceral hypersensitivity have been frequently observed in patients with gastroesophageal reflux. The aim of this study was to observe the incidences of hypersensitivity to acid infusion and motor abnormalities in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) compared with erosive esophagitis.

METHODS

We performed upper GI endoscopy, an acid perfusion test and esophageal manometry on 113 NERD patients and 37 erosive esophagitis patients.

RESULTS

The frequency of acid sensitization was 69.9% in NERD and 67.6% in erosive esophagitis. The frequency of esophageal motor abnormality in patients with erosive esophagitis (48.6%) was higher than in patients with NERD (25.7%, P = 0.014). The most frequent esophageal motor abnormality was IEM. The frequency of IEM was 15.9% in NERD patients, 42.9% in Los Angeles grade A, 53.8% in Los Angeles grade B and 66.7% in Los Angeles grade C esophagitis (chi(2) = 16.67, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that no difference exists between visceral hypersensitivity in patients with NERD and those with erosive esophagitis, and that IEM occurs in NERD as well as erosive esophagitis patients. The occurrence of IEM is associated with the endoscopic severity of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

[Esophageal motor disorders in cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices non-submitted to endoscopic treatment]

BACKGROUND

The hepatic cirrhosis has as one of the main morbid-mortality causes, the portal hypertension with the development of esophageal varices, the possibility of a digestive hemorrhage and worsening of hepatic insufficiency. It is important to identify causal predictive or aggravating factors and if possible to prevent them. In the last years, it has been observed the association of esophageal motor disorders and gastro-esophageal reflux in cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices.

AIMS

To study the prevalence of the esophageal motility disorders and among them, the ineffective esophageal motility, in patients with hepatic cirrhosis and esophageal varices, without previous endoscopic therapeutic and the predictive factors.

METHODS

Prospectively, it has been evaluate 74 patients suffering from liver cirrhosis and esophagic varices, without previous endoscopic treatment. All of them were submitted to a clinical protocol, esophageal manometry and 55 patients also held the ambulatory esophageal pHmetry.

RESULTS

Esophageal motility disorders have been found in 44 patients (60%). The most prevalent was the ineffective esophageal motility, observed in 28%. The abnormal reflux disease was diagnosed through the pHmetry in 35% of the patients. There were no correlation between the manometrical abnormality in general and the ineffective esophageal motility in particular and the esophageal or gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, the abnormal reflux, the disease seriousness, the ascites presence and the gauge of the varices.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of cirrhotic patients with non-treated esophageal varices present esophageal motor disorders. No predictive factor was found. The clinical relevance of these findings need more researches in the scope to define the real meaning of theses abnormalities.

Impact of referral for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on the workload of an academic Gastroenterology Unit

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is known to be a frequent cause of patients' referral to hospital gastroenterologists.

AIM

To increase knowledge on referral for reflux disease, in an Italian academic setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The impact of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease on 1 year's workload, comprising upper endoscopy, outpatients' consultations in the general clinic, oesophageal pH monitoring and oesophageal manometry was retrospectively assessed. Appropriateness of oesophageal pH monitoring and oesophageal manometry was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Endoscopy: Out of 2269 upper endoscopies reflux symptoms comprised 16.9% (n=386) of referrals; 19.1% only of these 386 patients had erosive oesophagitis at endoscopy and none had oesophagogastric malignancies (68% of the patients were >45 years). Consultations: Thirty-three percent out of 553 patients were referred for reflux symptoms. Upper endoscopy had already been performed before consultation in 64% of them. pH monitoring and oesophageal manometry: Two hundred and sixteen oesophageal pH monitorings and 160 oesophageal manometries were performed and 29% and 28%, respectively, were inappropriate, being performed in the diagnostic work-up of patients with typical reflux symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

At an academic Gastroenterology Unit, (a) gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is a frequent referral for upper endoscopy and consultations, (b) prevalence of oesophagitis is low, (c) consultation is preceded by endoscopy in the majority of patients and (d) oesophageal pH monitoring and oesophageal manometry are often inappropriately used.

Recent developments in the pathophysiology and therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease and nonerosive reflux disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a very common disorder. Proton pump inhibitors are the highly successful mainstay of medical gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment. However, some limitations of proton pump inhibitor therapy continue to drive studies that aim at better understanding and managing manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. This review summarizes recent progress in our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have demonstrated a potential role of increased gastric acid secretion in gastroesophageal reflux disease, a factor largely neglected during the last decade. Failure to respond adequately to proton pump inhibitor therapy has been attributed to diagnostic inaccuracy, to nocturnal acid breakthrough, to ongoing non-acid reflux and to esophageal hypersensitivity. The relevance of nocturnal acid breakthrough has been recently challenged. Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations are a major mechanism of gastroesophageal reflux disease; inhibition of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations is a potentially important therapeutic target. Recent studies have focused on GABA receptor stimulation using baclofen or sodium valproate. The role of esophageal body peristalsis in the clearance of reflux events has been questioned. Endoscopic antireflux therapies aim at perendoscopic reinforcement of the antireflux barrier as a novel therapeutic approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease. At present, long-term and controlled data are scarce. Recent observations have challenged the long-term efficacy of surgical antireflux therapy.

SUMMARY

Increased understanding of the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease may lead to new or improved treatments. Major advances have been made in the role of gastric acid secretion, the control of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and mechanisms underlying esophageal hypersensitivity. Recent studies have highlighted some shortcomings of proton pump inhibitor therapy and of antireflux surgery. Novel approaches are treatments aimed at decreasing transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and endoscopic antireflux procedures. Large-scale controlled studies are lacking for both treatments.

N/A

N/A

Relationship of Helicobacter pylori related gastritis, gut hormones and gastroesophageal reflux disease

AIM: To evaluate the relationship of H. pylori infection, H. pylori -related gastritis, serum gastrin and motilin levels and esophageal lesions in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS: All 53 GERD patients were divided into non-erosive reflux disease (NERD group, 32 cases) and reflux esophagitis (RE group, 21 cases ) by endoscopy. The degrees of gastritis in antrum and body as well as esophagitis were evaluated by pathological examinations. Fasting serum gastrin and motilin concentrations were determined by radioimmunoassay. H. pyloriwas examined by serum H. pylori-antibody, Warthin-Starry stain, urease-dependent test (rapid urease test or ¹⁴C-breath test).H. pylori infection was affirmed when at least two of three tests were positive. 20 normal persons were as controls. In NERD group, 18 were H. pylori positive and 14 were negative. In RE group 12 were H. pylori positive and 9 were negative. According to the classification of esophagitis, 11 were ClassⅠ, 7 ClassⅡ and 3 Class Ⅲ. There were 30 H. pylori (+) and 23 H. pylori (-) in 53 GERD patients.

RESULTS: As compared with healthy controls, fasting serum motilin levels in RE group were significantly lower (360±126 vs 440±110 mg/L, ^aP < 0.05) and those in NERD group were similar (P > 0.05). No differences in gastrin levels were found between NERD or RE group and controls (both P > 0.05). The serum gastrin levels in H. pylori (+) GERD were significantly higher than controls (35.8±11.6 vs 28.5±10.6 mg/L, ^bP < 0.05). In H. pylori (+) GERD patients, gastritis grades in the antrum and gastric body were significantly higher than that in H. pylori (-) patients (χ² = 32.97, χ² = 15.67, both P < 0.005). The esophagitis grades were similar in H. pylori (+) and H. pylori (-) GERD (χ² = 0.82, P > 0.05). The gastritis grades were not associated with the esophagitis degrees, but with H. pylori infection.

CONCLUSION: Motilin is involved in the pathogenesis of RE. H. pylori can lead to hypergastrinemia and gastritis in the antrum and gastric body.