Search Results (7)

Background and Objectives: The threshold for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) diagnosis was changed in Chicago v4.0. Our aim was to determine IEM prevalence using the new criteria and the differences between patients with definite IEM versus “inconclusive diagnosis”. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively selected IEM and fragmented peristalsis (FP) patients from the high-resolution esophageal manometries (HREMs) database. Clinical, demographic data and manometric parameters were recorded. Results: Of 348 HREMs analyzed using Chicago v3.0, 12.3% of patients had IEM and 0.86% had FP. Using Chicago v4.0, 8.9% of patients had IEM (IEM-4 group). We compared them with the remaining 16 with an inconclusive diagnosis of IEM (borderline group). Dysphagia (77% vs. 44%, Z-test = 2.3, p = 0.02) and weight loss were more commonly observed in IEM-4 compared to the borderline group. The reflux symptoms were more prevalent in the borderline group (87.5% vs. 70.9%, p = 0.2). Type 2 or 3 esophagogastric junction morphology was more prevalent in the borderline group (81.2%) vs. 64.5% in IEM-4 (p = 0.23). Distal contractile integral (DCI) was lower in IEM-4 vs. the borderline group, and resting lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and mean integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) were similar. The number of ineffective swallows and failed swallows was higher in IEM-4 compared to the borderline group. Conclusions: Using Chicago v4.0, less than 10% of patients had a definite diagnosis of IEM. The dominant symptom was dysphagia. Only DCI and the number of failed and inefficient swallows were different between definite IEM patients and borderline cases. Full article

Background/Objective: Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is often associated with dysphagia and esophageal dysmotility (ED). However, ED in patients with MSA is poorly understood. To assess the relationship between ED, dysphagia, and other clinical findings in such patients and investigate the details of ED in MSA using high-resolution manometry (HRM). Methods: Patients from The University of Tokyo Hospital with MSA who underwent swallowing examinations, esophagography, and HRM between 2017 and 2022 were enrolled. A retrospective chart review of patients’ backgrounds, swallowing function, and esophageal motility was performed. ED was evaluated using the Chicago Classification version 4.0. Results: Seventy-four patients with MSA were identified. The median age was 64 years, 48 patients (65%) were male, and the cerebellar variant type was predominant (69%). Abnormal upper esophageal sphincter (UES) resting pressure was observed in 34 patients (46%) and intraesophageal stasis in 65 (88%). High-severity MSA was a risk factor for developing dysphagia, vocal fold movement impairment, and abnormal UES function (p < 0.05). However, no overt clinical risk factors for ED were identified. Various types of ED were detected using HRM, and ineffective esophageal motility was the most frequent disorder. Conclusions: ED is a common occurrence in patients with MSA. Although a high-severity MSA may be a risk factor for developing dysphagia and vocal fold motion impairment, ED can occur regardless of clinical severity. Since ED is rarely detected based on subjective symptoms, careful evaluation of esophageal motility by esophagography or HRM is warranted in patients with MSA. Full article

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. Full article

Background: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common esophageal motility disorder associated with low-to-moderate amplitude contractions in the distal esophagus in manometric evaluations. Despite recent new conceptions regarding the pathophysiology of esophageal motility and IEM, there are still no effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment of this disorder. This study aimed to investigate the effect of buspirone in the treatment of concomitant IEM and GERD. Methods and Materials: The present study was a randomized clinical trial conducted at the Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran. Patients with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease and dysphagia underwent upper endoscopy to rule out any mechanical obstruction and were diagnosed with an ineffective esophageal motility disorder based on high-resolution manometry. They were given a package containing the desired medication(s); half of the packets contained 10 mg (for 30 days) of buspirone and 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole, and the other half contained only 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole. Dysphagia was scored based on the Mayo score, as well as a table of dysphagia severity. Manometric variables were recorded before and after the treatment. Results: Thirty patients (15 pantoprazole and 15 pantoprazole plus buspirone) were included. Females comprised 63.3% of the population, with a mean age of 46.33 ± 11.15. The MAYO score and resting LES pressure significantly changed after treatment. The MAYO and Swallowing Disorder Questionnaire scores significantly decreased after treatment in both groups of patients. Our results revealed that the post-intervention values of manometric variables differed significantly between the two groups after controlling for the baseline values of the variables. This analysis did not demonstrate the superiority of buspirone. Conclusion: Buspirone seems to have no superiority over PPI. Treatment with concomitant IEM and GERD using proton pump inhibitors improves the patient’s clinical condition and quality of life. However, adding buspirone to the treatment regimen did not appear to make a significant difference in patient treatment. Full article

Esophageal motility disorders account for a large proportion of nonobstructive dysphagia cases, which constitute a heterogeneous group of diagnoses that commonly result in peristaltic derangement and impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. We performed a single-institution retrospective study enrolling consecutive patients with chief complaints of dysphagia who underwent HRIM from December 2014 to December 2019, and analyzed demographic, clinical, and manometric data using descriptive statistics. In total, 277 identified patients were included in the final analysis. Ineffective esophageal motility (n = 152, 24.5%) was the most common diagnosis by HRIM, followed by absent contractility, EGJ outflow obstruction, type II achalasia, and type I achalasia. Furthermore, surgery including exploratory, laparoscopic, and robotic myotomy, as well as POEM, is considered the most effective treatment for patients with non-spastic achalasia and EGJOO, due to its effective symptom palliation and prevention of disease progression; surgery also contributes to an obvious improvement of dysphagia compared with slightly less efficacy for other related symptoms. Our study aimed to elaborate the clinical characteristics of patients with nonobstructive dysphagia based on HRIM in a Taiwanese population, and to analyze the therapeutic outcomes of such patients who ultimately underwent surgical interventions. Full article

Background: Esophageal dysmotility may be the cause or a secondary effect of gastric acid-dependent diseases: erosive reflux disease (ERD), Schatzki ring (SR) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Methods: This study aims to compare concomitant dysphagia with ERD, SR and EoE, considering manometric patterns, their role in the natural history and their impact on assessing quality of life. Fifty-eight patients with dysphagia underwent high-resolution manometry and esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) with an assessment of SR, ERD and sampling for EoE, completed a questionnaire with the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. Based on endoscopic images and the histopathological criterion of EoE (≥15 eosinophils/high-power field), patients were assigned to groups with ERD, EoE, SR and with normal endoscopic and histopathological images. In the data analysis, p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT04803162). Results: Both EoE, SR and ERD correlate with ineffective motility. In ERD, normal peristalsis precedes the development of the disease, unlike EoE, which develops later and leads to absent contractility. The development of SR is associated with disorders of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). In the group with SR and ERD, UES insufficiency significantly reduces the quality of life. Patients with normal esophagus in EGD scored the lowest quality of life and those with SR had the most severe dysphagia. Conclusion: The esophageal motility disorders co-occurring with endoscopic and histological anomalies do not significantly affect the severity of dysphagia, however, in the case of patients with ERD and SR and concomitant UES insufficiency, this motor dysfunction has a significant impact on the reduction in the patients’ quality of life. Although no specific esophageal motility pattern typical of EoE, ERD and SR has been identified, comparative assessment of manometric features may have a potential role in differential diagnosis. Full article

The best-defined primary esophageal motor disorder is achalasia. However, symptoms such as dysphagia, regurgitation and chest pain can be caused by other esophageal motility disorders. The Chicago classification introduced new manometric parameters and better defined esophageal motility disorders. Motility disorders beyond achalasia with the current classification are: esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, major disorders of peristalsis (distal esophageal spasm, hypercontractile esophagus, absent contractility) and minor disorders of peristalsis (ineffective esophageal motility, fragmented peristalsis). The aim of this study was to review the current diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders other than achalasia. Full article