Audit of the role of oesophageal manometry in clinical practice.

This oesophageal laboratory serves a population of 1.5 million. The study aimed to review referral patterns and assess the cost effectiveness of oesophageal manometry in clinical practice. All 276 consecutive manometry studies performed between 1988 and 1991 were reviewed. Reasons for referral in the 268 first referrals were: dysphagia 50.4%, non-cardiac chest pain 23.1%, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease 14.2%, connective tissue disease 11.2%, and 'other' 1.1%. Manometry was normal in 49.3%, showed achalasia in 17.9%, diffuse oesophageal spasm in 13.4%, connective tissue disease in 7.8%, hypertensive lower oesophageal sphincter in 4.5%, nutcracker oesophagus in 2.6%, and 'other' in 4.5%. A positive diagnosis was significantly more common if dysphagia was the reason for referral (65.9% v 35.3%, p < 0.01). A positive diagnosis was established in 60% of patients referred with connective tissue disease, 30.6% with non-cardiac chest pain, and 21.1% with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A positive diagnosis was significantly more common in connective tissue disease when symptoms were present (85% v 10%, p < 0.05). Management was changed in 48.9% of all patients because of manometry findings. The cost of each oesophageal manometry study was calculated to be 63.00 pounds: every change in patient management cost 129.00 pounds. In conclusion, oesophageal manometry changed management in over 20% of patients with non-cardiac chest pain or gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and in over 60% of those with dysphagia. It is, therefore, a useful and cost effective test in patients with these symptoms.     

New techniques to evaluate esophageal function

Classical techniques like videofluoroscopy, stationary manometry and ambulatory 24-hour pH-metry are routinely used in the clinic to study patients with dysphagia, chest pain and reflux-related symptoms. Although many patients can be accurately diagnosed and their therapy successfully guided with these techniques, in many other patients, non-obstructive dysphagia or chest pain cannot be attributed to clear fluoroscopic or manometric abnormalities. Furthermore, ambulatory 24-hour pH-metry often shows a poor association between spontaneous acid reflux events and esophageal or extraesophageal symptoms, particularly in patients 'on' treatment. Non-obstructive dysphagia can be assessed with high-resolution manometry to detect segmental disturbances of peristalsis, increase in pressure gradient across the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) or abnormal axial movement of the LES during esophageal spasm. Impedance evaluation of bolus transit is a non-radiological method that can evaluate the functional relevance of manometric abnormalities. Patients with non-cardiac chest pain that do not respond to proton pump inhibitor therapy can be further assessed with intraluminal high-frequency ultrasound to detect sustained esophageal contractions of the longitudinal muscle layer. Impedance planimetry, with multimodal esophageal stimulation, may contribute to evaluate the sensitivity to mechanical, thermal and chemical stimuli. Finally, patients with persistent symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux in spite of adequate treatment with proton pump inhibitors may still have weakly acidic reflux and/or bile reflux associated with their symptoms. These types of refluxates can now be detected with combinations of pH-impedance or pH-Bilitec monitoring. This review will describe the available new techniques to evaluate patients with non-obstructive dysphagia, non-cardiac chest pain and persistent gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.     

Clinical Utility of Selective Esophageal Manometry in a Tertiary Care Setting

Purpose To evaluate the utility of selective esophageal manometry in clinical practice. Results Retrospective data from 200 subjects was reviewed. Manometry was considered to be (1) high clinical utility when specific abnormality was identified resulting in therapeutic intervention, (2) low clinical utility when specific abnormality was identified without alteration of therapy, (3) limited clinical utility when manometry was normal. High, low, and limited clinical utility was noted in 47, 40, and 13% of instances. Manometry was of high utility in patients with dysphagia or non-cardiac chest pain (P < 0.05), and low utility in gastroesophageal reflux (P < 0.05). Conclusions (1) Esophageal manometry has high clinical utility in dysphagia after exclusion of structural disorders; and non-cardiac chest pain after careful exclusion of reflux. (2) Ineffective motility disorder has high association with gastroesophageal reflux disease but low clinical utility except in preoperative assessment for fundoplication. (3) Esophageal manometry is of high utility in clinical practice when used in conjunction with other diagnostic exclusions.     

Esophageal motility disorders

Esophageal motility abnormalities are usually diagnosed when esophageal manometry is performed in patients with unexplained non-cardiac chest pain, non obstructive dysphagia or as a part of the preoperative evaluation for surgery of gastroesophageal reflux. Classification of these abnormalities has been a subject of controversy. These esophageal contraction abnormalities can be separated manometrically from the motor pattern seen in normal subjects, however, their clinical relevance is still unclear and debated. Many patients demonstrate motility abnormalities in the manometry laboratories, but may lack correlation with their presenting symptoms. Medical treatment can decrease symptoms particularly chest pain or acid reflux but there is no significant changes in the manometric patterns. Such motor abnormalities may not reflect a true disease state, but they could be markers of other abnormalities and they can modify the initial manometric findings in time.     

Role of oesophageal manometry in clinical practice

The present study evaluates the role of oesophageal manometry in clinical practice. Over 5 years, 347 consecutive patients were evaluated in our oesophageal laboratory. The reasons for referral were: dysphagia (11.5%), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) (46.7%), non-cardiac chest pain (28.5%), connective tissue disease (6.9%) and other symptomatology (6.3%). Patients were classified into the following five groups according to the referral diagnosis: dysphagia (40 patients), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) (162 patients), non-cardiac chest pain (99 patients), connective tissue disease (24 patients) and other symptomatology (22 patients). Abnormalities in oesophageal motility were detected in 90% of patients with dysphagia, in 40.1% of patients with GORD, in 47.5% of subjects with non-cardiac chest pain, in 45.8% of patients with connective tissue disease and in 18.2% of subjects with other symptomatology. The high prevalence of abnormalities in the dysphagia group was statistically significant (p < 0.001), and the range of 95% confidence intervals (0.81-0.99) suggests that the value found may be a reasonably good estimate of percentage of anomalies detectable in the dysphagia patient population. In the dysphagia group, the initial diagnosis was confirmed in 40% of patients and changed in 52.5%; in only 7.5% of cases were the manometry results not relevant for determining an appropriate diagnosis. Manometry substantially contributed to patients receiving the correct treatment in 82.5% of cases (p < 0.001 among all groups). In the GORD group and in the non-cardiac chest pain group, the results of manometry were not relevant for confirming or changing a diagnosis in 59.8% and 53.5% of cases respectively; nevertheless, in both groups, on the basis of manometry results, the treatment was changed in 42.5% of patients (p < 0.01 vs. other symptomatology group). In conclusion, on the basis of the present data, we can emphasize the usefulness of oesophageal manometry assessment in patients with dysphagia or non-cardiac chest pain, with negative routine examinations, and also in patients with refractory GORD who have been considered for antireflux surgery.     

Esophageal testing of patients with noncardiac chest pain or dysphagia. Results of three years' experience with 1161 patients

Records from 910 patients referred to our clinical esophageal manometry laboratory for evaluation of noncardiac chest pain between January 1983 and December 1985 were reviewed and compared with records from 251 patients referred for dysphagia. Evaluation included baseline esophageal manometry, acid perfusion test, and edrophonium provocation. In the chest-pain group, 655 patients (72%) had normal esophageal motility and 255 (28%) had abnormal motility. Nutcracker esophagus was present in 48% of abnormal tracings, suggesting that it is a manometric marker for noncardiac chest pain. Of the total chest-pain group, 243 patients (27%) had their pain reproduced during provocative testing ("definite" esophageal pain); 192 patients (21%) had baseline manometric abnormalities but no pain during provocative testing ("probable" esophageal chest pain). The highest percentage of positive provocative responses (34%) occurred in patients with nutcracker esophagus on baseline manometry. Manometric abnormalities were statistically commoner (p less than 0.001) in patients with dysphagia, occurring in 53%. Achalasia (36%) and nonspecific esophageal motility disorders (38%) were the commonest abnormalities in this group, with nutcracker esophagus being infrequent (10%).     

Nutcracker esophagus: GERD or an esophageal motility disorder

A retrospective study was performed to determine the frequency of acid-related esophageal dysfunction in an unselected group of patients with nutcracker esophagus (NE). Five hundred seventy-two consecutive patients who underwent esophageal manometry and pH testing at one institution were evaluated. Forty-one percent were referred for evaluation of chest pain, 39% for reflux symptoms, and 20% for dysphagia, nausea, or epigastric pain. Esophageal manometry and 24-h pH monitoring were performed using standard methods. NE was defined as amplitude of phasic contractions of ≥180 mm Hg in any manometric tracing at any level of the esophagus. Abnormal total reflux was defined as >4% of the time with the esophageal pH < 4. A positive symptom index was defined as >50% of periods with pH < 4 coinciding with symptoms of chest pain or heartburn. Esophagitis was defined as an unequivocal mucosal defect if esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed.
Forty-five patients met criteria for NE, with acid-related abnormalities found in 77%. Forty-nine percent had abnormal acid exposure time, 16% had positive symptom indexes with normal acid exposure, and 5% had endoscopic esophagitis. An additional 7% had only an increased number of reflux episodes with normal acid exposure and symptom indexes. The prevalence of NE was significantly higher in patients referred for chest pain than for typical reflux symptoms (14.3% vs 4.5%). Seventy-four percent of the patients with NE and chest pain did not have classic reflux symptoms. Seventy-six percent of 34 evaluable subjects who had been started on acid suppression were either improved or symptom free at an average of 10.7 months of follow-up.     

Apple Sauce Improves Detection of Esophageal Motor Dysfunction During High-Resolution Manometry Evaluation of Dysphagia

Background  

Esophageal manometry utilizes water swallows to evaluate esophageal motor abnormalities in patients with dysphagia, chest pain, or reflux symptoms. Although manometry is the gold standard for evaluation of these symptoms, patients with dysphagia often have normal results in manometry studies.     

Comparison of esophageal manometry,provocative testing,and ambulatory monitoring in patients with unexplained chest pain

Prolonged ambulatory esophageal pH and pressure monitors are being developed to evaluate noncardiac chest pain. This new technology needs comparison with conventional esophageal tests before determining which studies are most useful in diagnosing and treating esophageal chest pain. Therefore, we studied 45 patients with esophageal manometry, acid perfusion and edrophonium tests, and 24 hr pH and pressure monitoring. Manometry was abnormal in 20 patients (44%) with nutcracker esophagus, the most common motility disorder. Fifteen (33%) had positive acid perfusion test and 24 (55%) positive edrophonium test. During ambulatory monitoring, all patients experienced chest pain with a total of 202 individual events: 32 events (15%) secondary to acid reflux, 15 (7%) secondary to motility abnormalities, 7 (3%) to both pH and pressure changes, and 149 events (74%) occurred in the absence of any abnormal pH or motility changes. Patients with normal manometry were significantly (P less than 0.01) more likely to have acid reflux chest pain events than did nutcracker patients, who had an equal frequency of pH and motility events. A positive acid perfusion test was significantly associated with abnormal pressure events (P = 0.02; odds ratio 5.95), while a positive edrophonium test more likely predicted acid reflux chest pain during 24-hr monitoring (P = 0.007; odds ratio 7.25). Therefore, abnormal manometry and positive provocative tests point to the esophagus as the likely source of chest pain. However, ambulatory pH and pressure monitoring are required to accurately define the relationship between chest pain and acid reflux or motility disorders.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

pHmetry and manometry of the esophagus in patients with pain of the angina type and a normal angiography

The role of gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal motility abnormalities in patients with angina-type chest pain and normal coronary angiogram is not clear. The aim of this study was: a) to assess the importance of these two disorders in the same patients, b) to study the diagnostic usefulness of provocation tests, c) to determine final outcome in these patients. Seventeen patients with angina-type chest pain and normal coronary angiograms were studied to determine the diagnostic value of esophageal manometry, postprandial esophageal pH monitoring, provocation tests (methylergometrine stimulation, acid perfusion test) and endoscopy. Baseline esophageal motility was abnormal in 10 patients. Esophageal motility disorders were nonspecific in seven patients. Eight patients had reflux. The mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was decreased in these patients as compared with normals, and endoscopy showed a high Z line, and/or a large opening of the cardia in 7 of them. Neither conventional manometry nor postprandial esophageal pH monitoring allowed to consider the esophagus as responsible for chest pain. The methylergometrine test was positive in 4 patients (simultaneous occurrence of familiar pain and esophageal dysmotility). Baseline manometric studies did not allow to forecast the response to methylergometrine injection. The acid perfusion test was negative (no symptoms were reproduced) in all patients. After esophageal evaluation, 16 patients were followed for a mean of 26 +/- 9 months. No cardiac disorders appeared, but all patients continued to have pain, and 7 were incapable of working.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

胃食管反流病相关非心源性胸痛患者食道患病率调查研究

ObjectiveTo investigate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of esophagus in patients with non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP). MethodsPatients who diagnosed with NCCP from January 2018 to April 2019 in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region People's Hospital were selected as the study subjects. Detailed medical history, physical examination, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, high resolution esophageal manometry and 24 h dynamic esophageal pH monitoring were performed on all subjects. ResultsThe total number of subjects was 85, of which male 45(52.94%), with an average age of 41.2±12.4 years;female was 40 (47.06%), with an average age of 43.3±10.9 years. The most common symptoms in NCCP patients were acid reflux 43.53%, dysphagia 31.76%, heartburn 24.71%. Endoscopic abnormalities of upper gastrointestinal tract accounted for 31.76%, esophageal manometry abnormalities accounted for 67.06%, and dynamic pH monitoring abnormalities accounted for 34.76%. The prevalence of GERD was 42.36% determined by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy combined with 24 h pH monitoring. According to manometric results, ineffective esophageal motility in 23.53% of NCCP patients was the most common cause of NCCP. ConclusionBy analyzing the causes of esophagogenous NCCP, it is helpful for clinicians to exclude other high-risk factors leading to chest pain and to provide appropriate treatment for their diagnosis and treatment     

Does this patient have oesophageal motility abnormality or pathological acid reflux?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnostic values of particular symptoms centred on oesophagus, among patients with suspected oesophageal motility abnormality or pathological acid exposure, are not yet fully understood. The aim of this study was to determine the predictive accuracy of these symptoms in diagnosis of oesophageal motility disorder or pathological acid exposure. PATIENTS AND METHODS.: A total of 462 patients who had undergone conventional oesophageal manometry and ambulatory 24-h pH monitoring to investigate a clinical suspicion of oesophageal motility disorder and pathological acid exposure were enrolled in this study. According to their principal complaints, the patients were divided into the dysphagia category, the non-cardiac chest pain category, the gastrooesophageal reflux disease-related symptom category and the extraoesophageal symptom category. RESULTS: Two hundred and two (44%) out of 462 patients yielded abnormal findings on manometry and/or pH monitoring. Dysphagia was associated with a likelihood ratio (LR) of 2.11 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-4.00)] in patients exhibiting a combination of oesophageal motility abnormality and pathological acid exposure. During oesophageal manometry, the dysphagia substantially increased the likelihood of classic achalasia (LR, 6.24; 95% CI, 3.32-8.78) and diffuse oesophageal spasm (LR, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.03-7.12). When the patients with dysphagia were divided into two groups according to the severity of their symptoms, classic achalasia was significantly frequent in patients with severe dysphagia (P = 0.016). On the other hand, non-cardiac chest pain was the clinical factor that reduced the likelihood of classic achalasia (LR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.04-0.93). The distribution of pathological acid exposure was significantly frequent between the groups of patients with and without gastrooesophageal reflux disease-related symptom (P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: A small number of oesophageal symptoms are helpful in predicting the likelihood of abnormal findings on oesophageal tests among patients with a clinical suspicion of oesophageal motility disorder and pathological acid exposure. The most useful finding is a severe dysphagia, which is likely to have classic achalasia.     

Abnormal gastro-oesophageal reflux in Chinese with atypical chest pain

Although atypical chest pain has been well described in the Western population, its frequency in Chinese is unknown. Over a period of 42 months, we studied 521 Chinese patients with chest pain and identified 108 patients (20.7%) whose pain was not related to cardiac causes, as determined by exercise ECG or cardiac catheterization. Using 24 h ambulatory pH monitoring and baseline oesophageal manometry, 28.7, 19.4 and 5.6% of these patients were found to have abnormal reflux parameters, abnormal manometric findings or both, respectively. There were significantly more patients complaining of chest pain during the study in the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) group than in the non-GERD group (16/31 vs 20/77; P< 0.001). The lower oesophageal sphincter pressure was lower in those with abnormal reflex parameters than in those with normal reflux parameters (12.7±5.4 vs 17.8±5.8 mmHg; P< 0.05). There was no significant difference in symptoms, such as heartburn (54.8 vs 42.9%), regurgitation (38.7 vs 35.1%) and dysphagia (19.4 vs 24.7%), among the two groups. Non-specific changes were the most frequent baseline motility pattern. In conclusion, atypical chest pain and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease are not uncommon in Chinese and this deserves special emphasis as the continuation of anti-anginal drugs may aggravate their condition.     

Modified acid reflux test

Although the standard acid reflux test is often used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux (GER), the cost and benefit of this diagnostic test has never been evaluated. In this study, 184 consecutive referrals with esophageal symptoms were interviewed and had an esophagram, an esophageal manometry, and a modified acid reflux test (MART). The results were analyzed to determine how frequently MART altered the clinical diagnosis and to assess the cost of the new information. Patients with typical symptoms of GER (heartburn or regurgitation) were compared to those with atypical presentation (chest pain or dysphagia). Previously unsuspected GER was demonstrated in 63% of the atypical group, whereas no altered diagnosis was made in the typical group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when mean lower esophageal sphincter pressures and mean pH scores were compared. MART was cost effective only in the atypical group, in which the cost of an altered diagnosis was $633.00.     

Nutcracker oesophagus: Association with chest pain and dysphagia controlling for gastro-oesophageal reflux

BACKGROUND: The association between nutcracker oesophagus, gastro-oesophageal reflux and their symptoms is controversial. AIM: To evaluate the association of nutcracker oesophagus with chest pain and dysphagia controlling for gastro-oesophageal reflux. METHODS: From a database of 935 consecutive patients investigated with oesophageal manometry and pH-metry, we selected all patients with nutcracker oesophagus including diffuse and segmental patterns. Patients with normal oesophageal peristalsis served as controls. Symptoms assessment, manometry testing and 24h oesophageal pH monitoring off acid-suppressive medications were performed following a standardized protocol. The associations between nutcracker oesophagus and symptoms were assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Nutcracker oesophagus was found in 60 patients (6.4%), of which 30 had diffuse nutcracker oesophagus and 30 had segmental nutcracker oesophagus. The control group was composed by 656 patients with normal oesophageal peristalsis. Diffuse nutcracker oesophagus was associated with chest pain (odds ratio 4.3; 95% CI 1.9-9.9; P<0.0001) and dysphagia (odds ratio 5.3; 95% CI 2.3-12.2; P<0.0001), whereas segmental nutcracker oesophagus was associated with chest pain (odds ratio 2.8; 95% CI 1.1-6.9; P=0.026), controlling for total oesophageal acid exposure, age, sex and lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) pressure. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both diffuse and segmental nutcracker oesophagus should be regarded as meaningful abnormalities and not mere manometric curiosities.     

Variations in clinical presentation of patients with esophageal contraction abnormalities

All patients referred over a one-year period for clinical esophageal manometry were asked to carefully characterize their esophageal symptoms on a self-report questionnaire. Seventy-five patients (48%) were found to have one or more of four contraction abnormalities in the distal esophagus which are thought to be associated with esophageal symptoms. Duration of any of the five symptoms sought (chest pain, dysphagia for solids, dysphagia for liquids, heartburn, regurgitation) varied from two weeks to 28 years (median two years). The prevalence of the individual esophageal symptoms was similar for each of the four contraction abnormalities. Chest pain was the most common symptom and did not vary in prevalence with the cumulative number of manometric abnormalities. In contrast, dysphagia for either liquids or solids tended to increase in prevalence with manometric severity. The variation in location of reported chest pain and dysphagia was remarkable. Although heartburn was reported as a presenting symptom by 48%, this symptom was reproduced by acid instillation in less than half of those so studied. We conclude that esophageal symptoms are generally poor predictors of manometric findings within this group and that variations in clinical presentation are common.     

Nutcracker esophagus: clinical evaluation of 97 patients]

Nutcracker esophagus is a manometric abnormality classified as a primary esophageal motor disorder, characterized by high pressure peristaltic waves in distal esophagus and related to non-cardiac chest pain. Further studies observed nutcracker esophagus in dysphagic patients and recently in gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, there is controversy about the meaning of this motor disorder and there are few clinical studies involving a great number of patients. A retrospective study involving 97 patients with manometric criteria of nutcracker esophagus according a control group was undertaken. Most of the patients were female (63.9%), mean age 54.3 years. The chief complaint was chest pain, followed by dysphagia and heartburn. Clinical findings, as a whole were chest pain (53.6%), dysphagia (52.6%), heartburn (52.6%), regurgitation (21.6%), otorhinolaryngologic symptoms (15.4%), dyspepsia (15.4%) and odynophagia (4.1%). The majority of patients had multiple symptoms, however in 28% just a single one was observed. Endoscopic examination observed erosive esophagitis in 8% of the patients, while signs of esophageal motor disorders were showed by esophagogram in 16.4%. Esophageal pH recordings indicated abnormal gastroesophageal reflux in 41.2% of the cases reported. We concluded that there are other symptoms in nutcracker esophagus patients besides chest pain and dysphagia and the use of esophageal pH recordings is helpful to establish its association with acid reflux and guide the appropriate therapy.     

Utility and standards in esophageal manometry

Esophageal manometry is a specialized procedure used to evaluate lower and upper esophageal sphincter pressure, esophageal body contraction amplitude, and peristaltic sequence. The procedure is clinically useful in evaluation of a patient with nonstructural dysphagia, unexplained or noncardiac chest pain, a compendium of symptoms suggested because of gastroesophageal reflux disease, and in the preoperative evaluation for antireflux surgery. Manometric findings in 95 normal subjects evenly distributed across age groups were reported in 1987, and are the values still used in our and most laboratories today. The subsequent review will offer our "view" on the clinical utility of esophageal manometry, on the basis of years of experience and performance techniques that have remained constant over decades.     

Esophagitis in progressive systemic scleroderma. Prevalence and risk factors in forty-six patients]

Forty-six patients with progressive systemic sclerosis (37 women and 9 men) were successively evaluated by endoscopy, manometry, and esophageal pH monitoring. Fourteen patients (30.4 percent) had erosive esophagitis. Twenty-four patients were symptomatic; nineteen patients complained of dysplagia. Erosive esophagitis was significantly more frequent in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (50.0 percent vs 9 percent, P less than 0.01) and especially in patients complaining of dysphagia (57.9 percent vs 11.1 percent, P less than 0.01). Erosive esophagitis was not correlated with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. Abnormal esophageal motility was found in 34 patients (73.9 percent). Occurrence of erosive esophagitis was not linked with esophageal dysmotility. In patients with erosive esophagitis lower esophageal sphincter pressures were significantly lower than those in patients without erosive esophagitis. Twenty-four hr-pH monitoring showed pathological gastroesophageal reflux in 20 patients (43.5 percent). Erosive esophagitis was more frequent in patients with pathological gastroesophageal reflux than in patients with normal gastroesophageal reflux (50.0 percent vs 15.4 percent, P less than 0.02) especially in patients with pathological supine nighttime gastroesophageal reflux (61.5 percent vs 18.2 percent, P less than 0.01). Our data suggest that symptoms, dysphagia, diminished lower esophageal sphincter pressures, and pathologic nighttime gastroesophageal reflux are reliable predictors of the presence of erosive esophagitis in patients with progressive systemic sclerosis.     

Noncardiac chest pain of esophageal origin in patients with and without coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Non-cardiac chest pain is a frequent finding in patients admitted to emergency departments, and it has been shown that many of these patients may have an esophageal cause for their pain. However, little data are available on patients primarily referred to the cardiology unit, and especially those with coronary artery disease. The purpose of this study was to assess the role of esophageal dysfunction in chest pain patients with and without coronary artery disease. METHODOLOGY: Eighty-one patients referred from a cardiology unit for chest pain and no myocardial infarction entered the study. Sixty-one patients had no evidence of coronary artery disease, whereas 20 had coronary artery disease with chest pain at rest. After the cardiological evaluation, the patients underwent esophageal function testing by means of upper endoscopy, manometry, and 24-hour pH-monitoring. RESULTS: Overall, 10% of patients (2.5% in the coronary artery disease group) had evidence of endoscopic esophagitis, 46% of esophageal motor disorders (12% in the coronary artery disease group), and 10% abnormal pH-monitoring (1% in the coronary artery disease group). CONCLUSIONS: We report that the esophagus might be responsible for non-cardiac chest pain in patients with and without coronary artery disease. In our experience, esophageal motor disorders, and not an increased acid reflux, are the abnormalities most commonly found in these patients.