Benefit of extending the protocol for high resolution manometry according to the version 4.0 of the Chicago criteria. A multicenter study

A practical approach to ineffective esophageal motility

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

A Comparison between Chicago Classification Versions 3.0 and 4.0 and Their Impact on Manometric Diagnoses in Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Cases

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management.