Clinical impact of different cut-off values in high-resolution manometry systems on diagnosing esophageal motility disorders

BACKGROUND

The values of the parameters in the Chicago classification measured by a high-resolution manometry (HRM) system with the Unisensor catheter (Starlet) are significantly different from those measured by the ManoScan. The contraction vigor is categorized by values of the distal contractile integral (DCI) in the Chicago classification v3.0; however, reference values of the DCI in the Starlet and the clinical impact of the different reference values in the Starlet and ManoScan on diagnosing esophageal motility disorders are not known.

METHODS

We evaluated data from a previous report in which ManoScan and Starlet were compared in the same subjects. The DCI values in each system were compared and reference DCI values were calculated. Moreover, diagnoses assessed by Starlet using reference values in ManoScan were compared with those using calculated reference values and those assessed by ManoScan.

RESULTS

There was a significant positive correlation between the DCI values measured by ManoScan and those measured by Starlet (r = 0.80, p < 0.01). Based on a linear functional relationship considering measurement errors, the reference DCI values for diagnosing failed, weak and hypercontractile contraction vigor were calculated as 590.6, 1011.3 and 10,085.8 mmHg-s-cm, respectively, in the Starlet. Therefore, the proposed reference values in the Starlet were 500, 1000 and 10,000 mmHg-s-cm, respectively. When the reference values in the ManoScan were used in the Starlet data, approximately 30% of subjects were diagnosed inappropriately. This issue was resolved using the proposed reference values in the Starlet.

CONCLUSION

Recognizing systemic differences in HRM systems is important.

Variant parameter values-as defined by the Chicago Criteria-produced by ManoScan and a new system with Unisensor catheter

BACKGROUND

Recently reported normal values for esophageal motility obtained by high-resolution manometry (HRM) using a system with a Unisensor catheter were significantly different from those obtained by the ManoScan(®) , which could result in a wrong diagnosis. To clarify whether these differences were due to system or subject differences, we compared the manometric parameter values between ManoScan and a new system with a Unisensor catheter (Starlet) in the same subjects.

METHODS

A total of 103 volunteers without any symptoms related to esophageal motility disorders were recruited. Esophageal HRM was performed using both the ManoScan and the Starlet in all subjects. Data from the ManoScan were analyzed using ManoView, and data from the Starlet were analyzed by a program with e-sleeve function. Integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, contractile front velocity (CFV), intrabolus pressure, and distal latency were calculated by both analyzing programs, and the values of these parameters were compared between the two systems by a signed rank test.

KEY RESULTS

Data from a total of 97 participants were analyzed. The values of all parameters, except CFV, measured by the Starlet were significantly higher than those obtained by the ManoScan (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Both systems can measure esophageal motility appropriately; nevertheless, we confirmed that the two systems showed different values of the parameters defined by the Chicago criteria. These differences should be recognized to evaluate esophageal motility precisely.