Derangement of esophageal anatomy and motility in morbidly obese patients: a prospective study based on high-resolution impedance manometry

BackgroundMorbidly obese patients often suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). High-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) allows a comprehensive evaluation of esophageal motility and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) morphology and helps to clarify GERD pathophysiology.ObjectiveTo evaluate the esophageal function and EGJ anatomy in morbid obesity by HRIM.SettingUniversity Hospital, Taiwan.MethodsWe consecutively enrolled 57 morbidly obese patients planning to undergo bariatric surgery and 58 healthy volunteers in this prospective study. All patients responded to validated symptom questionnaires and underwent fasting blood tests, HRIM, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. We compared anthropometric and HRIM parameters between the 2 groups, and analyzed correlations between the GERD symptom scores and clinical variables in the obese patients.ResultsThe obese patients, comprising 30 males (53%), had a median age of 35 years and body mass index of 40.5 kg/m². The 4-second integrated relaxation pressure in the lower esophageal sphincter was significantly higher in the patients than the volunteers (median: 10.8 versus 5.6 mm Hg; P < .001). EGJ outflow obstruction and ineffective esophageal motility were diagnosed in 16% and 11% of the patients, respectively, versus 5% and 28% of the volunteers (P = .022). Manometric hiatal hernia (m-HH) was present in 19 (33%) of the patients and none of the volunteers; all m-HH were associated with erosive esophagitis. Most of the patients were considered as no GERD by the validated questionnaires, regardless of the presence of m-HH and erosive esophagitis.ConclusionsThe obese patients had a higher lower esophageal sphincter 4-second integrated relaxation pressure and higher prevalence of EGJ outflow obstruction and m-HH than the healthy volunteers. The presence of m-HH was strongly associated with erosive esophagitis. The absence of GERD symptoms in morbid obesity was not necessarily suggestive of negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy and HRIM findings, and the discrepancy existed between esophagogastroduodenoscopy and HRIM for diagnosing HH. A comprehensive evaluation of the EGJ anatomy and esophageal function may be considered before bariatric surgery.     

Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

Background & Aims: Patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction are at high risk of developing pancreatitis after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. Impaired pancreatic drainage caused by pancreatic sphincter hypertension is the likely explanation for this increased risk. A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine if ductal drainage with pancreatic stenting protects against pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with pancreatic sphincter hypertension. Methods: Eligible patients with pancreatic sphincter hypertension were randomized to groups with pancreatic duct stents (n = 41) or no stents (n = 39) after biliary sphincterotomy. The primary measured outcome was pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Results: Pancreatic stenting significantly decreased the risk of pancreatitis from 26% to 7% (10 of 39 in the no stent group and 3 of 41 in the stent group; P = 0.03). Only 1 patient in the stent group developed pancreatitis after sphincterotomy, and 2 others developed pancreatitis at the time of stent extraction. Patients in the no stent group were 10 times more likely to develop pancreatitis immediately after sphincterotomy than those in the stent group (relative risk, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–78.3). Conclusions: Pancreatic duct stenting protects significantly against post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with pancreatic sphincter hypertension undergoing biliary sphincterotomy. Stenting of the pancreatic duct should be strongly considered after biliary sphincterotomy for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction; pancreatic sphincter of Oddi manometry identifies which high-risk patients may benefit from pancreatic stenting.GASTROENTEROLOGY 1998;115:1518-1524     

Anal sphincter repair in patients with obstetric trauma

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether advancing age affects the outcome of anal sphincter repair in patients with obstetric trauma and fecal incontinence. METHODS: Anal sphincter repair was performed on 24 patients younger than 40 (median age, 30) years and on 14 patients older than 40 (median age, 57) years. All patients had previous obstetric trauma. RESULTS: Twenty patients younger than 40 years (83 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 63–95 percent) became continent, or incontinent to flatus only, after anal sphincter repair, whereas four patients had unchanged incontinence. Among patients older than 40 years, six patients (43 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 18–71 percent) became continent, whereas eight patients remained incontinent (40 percent difference in functional outcome between younger and older patients; 95 percent confidence interval, 10–70 percent). CONCLUSION: Older females have a poorer outcome of anal sphincter repair for obstetric trauma compared with younger females.     

Drug effects on esophageal smooth muscle

To assess which manometric parameters should be evaluated to discriminate health and esophageal motility disorders, we established normal values for lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP), LES residual pressure, percentage and duration of LES relaxation, contraction amplitude in the esophageal body, duration of the contractile waves, mode of wave propagation, and shape of contraction amplitudes as well as upper esophageal sphincter pressure (UESP) in 40 healthy volunteers. The values obtained were compared to values in 25 patients with achalasia, 48 patients with nonspecific motility disorders, and 28 patients with reflux esophagitis. Although significant differences of mean values could be found between health and diseased states of esophageal motility, it was impossible to establish clear cutoff points in individuals due to a large overlap of manometric parameters in healthy volunteers and patients. Further prospective studies are necessary to determine sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of cutoff lines of manometric data. In addition to the inability to define esophageal motility disorders on the basis of motility parameters alone, there is a lack of correlation between the severity of esophageal symptoms and manometric findings. For example, in diffuse esophageal spasm and related disorders, amplitude, duration, configuration, and propagation of esophageal body contractions are not closely related to the severity of symptoms. In reflux esophagitis, mean LESP does not reflect the extent of symptoms or mucosal damage. Only in achalasia, do LESP and resting pressure of the esophageal body seem to be correlated to dysphagia. It is concluded that drug effects on esophageal motility should be evaluated not primarily by manometric data but by clinical effects.     

Elevated Intraesophageal Pressure in Patients with Achalasia: A Common and Important Manometric Finding

There is a subgroup of patients with achalasia in which manometry shows elevated intraesophageal pressure, expressed by elevation of esophageal baseline relative to gastric pressure. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of elevated intraesophageal pressure in patients with achalasia and its relationship to clinical, radiographic, endoscopic, and other manometric findings. Manometric studies of 62 patients with achalasia were analyzed and elevated intraesophageal pressure was considered any positive elevation of esophageal baseline relative to gastric pressure. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine independent risk factors associated with elevated intraesophageal pressure. Elevated intraesophageal pressure was found in 32 patients (51.6%). Lower esophageal sphincter pressure was the only independent variable associated with elevated intraesophageal pressure (P = 0.0167). Mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was significantly higher in patients with elevated compared to those with normal intraesophageal pressure (34 +/- 1.96 vs 26.5 +/- 1.73 mm Hg; P = 0.006). In addition, lower esophageal sphincter pressure had a positive correlation with intraesophageal pressure (r = 0.49, P < 0.001). Conversely, no correlation was found between elevated intraesophageal pressure and various symptoms, disease duration, radiologic dilation, a finding of retained fluid during endoscopy, and esophageal length. We conclude that elevated intraesophageal pressure is a common manometric finding in patients with achalasia, with a prevalence of 51.6%, and is associated with significantly higher lower esophageal sphincter pressure.