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

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.

Incorporating body mass index into esophageal manometry metrics and mean nocturnal baseline impedance for the evaluation of gastro-esophageal reflux disease

This study aims to enhance the effectiveness of high resolution manometry (HRM) and pH-impedance monitoring metrics in distinguishing between gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and non-GERD. A retrospective propensity score matching (PSM) study was conducted on 643 patients with GERD symptoms. PSM matched 134 GERD patients with 134 non-GERD controls. Body mass index (BMI), intra-esophageal pressure (IEP) and intra-gastric pressure (IGP) were significantly higher in the GERD group compared to the non-GERD group. BMI was correlated with IEP and IGP positively. IGP was positively correlated with esophagogastric (EGJ) pressure (EGJ-P) in participants with EGJ type 1 and 2, but not in participants with EGJ type 3. BMI was correlated with distal MNBI negatively. Logistic regression showed BMI as an independent risk factor for GERD. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and decision curve analysis (DCA) showed that BMI adjusted EGJ contractile integral (EGJ-CI) and BMI adjusted MNBI were superior to the corresponding original ones in predicting GERD susceptibility. According to the findings, BMI and IGP are the main factors contributing to the development of GERD. BMI affects IEP through the adaptive response of EGJ-P to IGP. Incorporating BMI into the calculations of EGJ-CI and MNBI can improve their ability in predicting GERD susceptibility.

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease and laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with dysphagia after radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in post-irradiated patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, 31 NPC and 12 control patients completed questionnaires for GERD/LPR before esophageal manometry and 24-h pH monitoring. The DeMeester score and reflux finding score (RFS) were used to define GERD and LPR, respectively. Risk factors were identified.

RESULTS

51.6% of NPC and 8.3% of control patients, and 77.4% of NPC and 33% of control patients, were GERD-positive and LPR-positive, respectively. The GERD/LPR questionnaire failed to identify either condition in patients with NPC. No parameter differences in esophageal manometry or pneumonia incidence were noted between GERD/LPR-positive and GERD/LPR-negative patients. Post radiotherapy duration, high BMI, lack of chemotherapy, and dysphagia were positive risk factors for GERD/LPR.

CONCLUSIONS

A high prevalence of GERD/LPR in patients with post-irradiated NPC exists, but reflux symptoms are inadequate for diagnosis.

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.

Esophageal motility disorder - has Chicago classification v4.0 simplified our management?

REVIEW PURPOSE

Addressing dysphagia is vital due to its prevalence and impact on healthcare expenditure. While high resolution manometry (HRM) effectively evaluates esophageal dysphagia, its role in oropharyngeal dysphagia and upper esophageal sphincter (UES) dysfunction remains debated. The fourth iteration of the Chicago classification (CC) offers an algorithmic approach for diagnosing abnormal motor patterns via HRM. This review assesses the CC's impact on dysphagia management.

RECENT INSIGHTS

The Chicago classification version 4.0 emphasizes auxiliary and provocative techniques when the algorithm falls short of a conclusive diagnosis. It introduces stricter criteria for previously ambiguous conditions like ineffective motility and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. This version also introduces the concept of conclusive and inconclusive classifications based on symptoms, provocation maneuvers, and supportive testing minimizing ambiguity.

SUMMARY

The Chicago classification v4.0 remains a useful tool for the diagnosis of well characterized esophageal motility disorders. However, major limitations include reliance on HRM and a focus on distal esophagus contractile characteristics without considering proximal esophagus or upper esophageal sphincter, both of which can sometimes be the only evident abnormality in patients with dysphagia. Despite efforts to reduce ambiguity, diagnostic challenges persist. These limitations can be addressed in future updates.