Comparison of two techniques for lower oesophageal sphincter manometry: sleeve and sphinctometer

We have compared the sphinctometer with the water-perfused sleeve (gold standard) for measurement of lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) characteristics by simultaneous recording. LOS pressure and transient LOS relaxations (TLOSR) measured by sleeve and sphinctometer in 11 healthy volunteers showed identical patterns. However, output of the sphinctometer was significantly (P < 0.01) lower than output of the sleeve. A total of 249 TLOSR were recorded. Of these, 176 TLOSR were identified by both sleeve and sphinctometer, 50 TLOSR were identified by sleeve alone and 23 TLOSR by sphinctometer alone. Due to the lower pressure output of the sphinctometer, 29 LOS relaxations did not reach criteria to qualify as TLOSRs. When TLOSR criteria were adjusted for sphinctometer pressure measurements, the number of TLOSRs identified by both sleeve and sphinctometer increased from 176 to 205. In conclusion, in healthy volunteers the sphinctometer registers TLOSR with results comparable with sleeve recording. However at low LOS pressures, the number of TLOSR is underscored by the sphinctometer.     

Kinetics of transient hiatus hernia during transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations and swallows in healthy subjects

Background Proximal displacement of the gastro‐esophageal junction (GEJ) is present in hiatus hernia but also occurs transiently during transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) and swallows. Using a novel magnetic‐based technique we have performed detailed examination of the GEJ movement during TLESRs and swallows in healthy subjects. Methods In 12 subjects, a magnet was endoscopically clipped to the GEJ and combined assembly of Hall‐Effect locator probe and 36 channel high‐resolution manometer passed nasally. After a test meal the subjects were studied for 90 min. Key Results The median amplitude of proximal movement of GEJ during TLESRs was 4.3 cm (1.6–8.8 cm) and this was substantially greater than during swallowing at 1.2 cm (0.4–2.7 cm), P = 0.002. With both TLESRs and swallows proximal GEJ movement coincided with lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation and return to its original position occurred 4 s after return of LES tone. Kinetic modeling of the movement of the GEJ during TLESRs indicated two return phases with the initial return phase having the greater velocity (0.9 cm s^?1) and being strongly correlated with amplitude of proximal movement (r = 0.8, P < 0.001). Conclusions & Inferences The marked proximal GEJ migration during TLESRs represents very severe herniation of the GEJ. The rapid initial return of the GEJ following TLESRs when the crural diaphragm is relaxed and its correlation with amplitude suggest it is due to elastic recoil of the phreno‐esophageal ligament. The marked stretching of the phreno‐esophageal ligament during TLESRs may contribute to its weakening and development of established hiatus hernia.     

Short-term electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter increases sphincter pressure in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background Electrical stimulation (ES) of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) increases resting LES pressure (LESP) in animal models. Our aims were to evaluate the safety of such stimulation in humans, and test the hypothesis that ES increases resting LESP in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods A total of 10 subjects (nine female patients, mean age 52.6 years), with symptoms of GERD responsive to PPIs, low resting LES pressure, and abnormal 24‐h intraesophageal pH test were enrolled. Those with hiatal hernia >2 cm and/or esophagitis >Los Angeles Grade B were excluded. Bipolar stitch electrodes were placed longitudinally in the LES during an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, secured by a clip and exteriorized through the abdominal wall. Following recovery, an external pulse generator delivered two types of stimulation for periods of 30 min: (i) low energy stimulation; pulse width of 200 μs, frequency of 20 Hz and current of 5–15 mA (current was increased up to 15 mA if LESP was less than 15 mmHg), and (ii) high energy stimulation; pulse width of 375 ms, frequency of 6 cpm, and current 5 mA. Resting LESP, amplitude of esophageal contractions and residual LESP in response to swallows were assessed before and after stimulation. Symptoms of chest pain, abdominal pain, and dysphagia were recorded before, during, and after stimulation and 7‐days after stimulation. Continuous cardiac monitoring was performed during and after stimulation. Key Results All patients were successfully implanted nine subjects received high frequency, low energy, and four subjects received low frequency, high energy stimulation. Both types of stimulation significantly increased resting LESP: from 8.6 mmHg (95% CI 4.1–13.1) to 16.6 mmHg (95% CI 10.8–19.2), P < 0.001 with low energy stimulation and from 9.2 mmHg (95% CI 2.0–16.3) to 16.5 mmHg (95% CI 2.7–30.1), P = 0.03 with high energy stimulation. Neither type of stimulation affected the amplitude of esophageal peristalsis or residual LESP. No subject complained of dysphagia. One subject had retrosternal discomfort with stimulation at15 mA that was not experienced with stimulation at 13 mA. There were no adverse events or any cardiac rhythm abnormalities with either type of stimulation. Conclusions & Inferences Short‐term stimulation of the LES in patients with GERD significantly increases resting LESP without affecting esophageal peristalsis or LES relaxation. Electrical stimulation of the LES may offer a novel therapy for patients with GERD.     

Transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations play an insignificant role in gastro-oesophageal reflux to the proximal oesophagus.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux to the proximal oesophagus may cause atypical symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The motor abnormalities underlying reflux into the proximal oesophagus are still unclear. The aim of this study was to analyse the oesophageal motility during reflux into the proximal oesophagus in a group of healthy subjects and in patients with atypical symptoms of GORD. We concentrated particularly on lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) activity and transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations (TLOSRs). Ten patients (7M, 3F, age 25-51 years) with mild oesophagitis (Savary-Miller grade I-II) and 10 healthy subjects (6M, 4F, age 23-54 years) underwent a 24-h dual pH-metric and manometric recording, using an electronic portable device. This recorded distal and proximal oesophageal pH values, oesophageal body and LOS motility. GORD patients had more distal and proximal reflux (DR and PR) compared with healthy controls (DR P < 0.001; PR P < 0.05). TLOSRs were the most frequent event during reflux into the distal oesophagus, whereas TLOSR frequency was much lower during reflux to the proximal oesophagus in GORD patients and in healthy controls (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 vs. distal reflux, respectively). A significant relationship between TLOSRs and distal refluxes was present but no relationship with proximal reflux was detected. We conclude that TLOSRs are much less frequent during reflux to the proximal oesophagus than distal oesophageal reflux in patients with mild GORD suffering from atypical manifestations. The mechanism of acid reflux to the proximal oesophagus is unclear.     

Treatment of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease: the new kids to block

Refractory gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD), defined as persistent symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, is an increasingly prevalent condition and is becoming a major challenge for the clinician. Since non‐acidic reflux may be associated with symptoms persisting during PPI treatment, the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), the most important barrier protecting against reflux, has become an important target for the treatment of (refractory) GERD. Preclinical research has identified several receptors that are involved in the control of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs), the predominant mechanism of both acid and non‐acidic reflux events, and several drugs have now been tested in humans. The GABA_B agonist baclofen has demonstrated to effectively reduce the rate of TLESRs and the amount of reflux in both GERD patients and healthy volunteers. Nevertheless, the occurrence of central side effects limits its clinical use for the treatment of GERD. Several analogues are being developed to overcome this limitation and have shown promising results. Additionally, metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) receptor antagonists have shown to reduce both acid and non‐acidic reflux in GERD patients and several molecules are currently being evaluated. Although CB₁ antagonists have been shown to reduce TLESRs, they are also associated with central side effects, limiting their clinical applicability. Despite the identification of several potentially interesting drugs, the main challenge for the future remains the reduction of central side effects. Moreover, future studies will need to demonstrate the efficacy of these treatments in patients with refractory GERD.     

Reproducibility of meal-induced transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

AIM: To calculate the number of subjects required in trials investigating drugs reducing the number of transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations (TLOSRs), the inter- and intra-individual variability of TLOSRs were determined, using meal ingestion as a trigger of TLOSRs and reflux. METHODS: A total of 23 gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) patients with no to grade B oesophagitis and a hiatal hernia < or =3 cm underwent oesophageal manometry and pHmetry 1 h before and 3 h after ingestion of a solid meal on two separate days approximately 4 weeks apart. Reflux episodes and the underlying mechanisms and the number of TLOSRs were evaluated. RESULTS: The number of TLOSRs, reflux episodes and % time with pH < 4 after meal ingestion did not differ significantly between the two sessions. The intra-individual variation of TLOSRs in the 3 h postprandial period (24.4) was smaller compared with the inter-individual variation (47.5). Transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations were the predominant cause of reflux accounting for 61 +/- 7 and 70 +/- 5% of the reflux episodes in visits 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data for the first time provide information on the variability of TLOSRs and reflux evoked by meal ingestion, which is of crucial importance for the design and power calculations of future clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of new drugs targeting TLOSRs.     

Gastro-oesophageal reflux of liquids and gas during transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations

Some transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations (TLOSRs) are accompanied by gastro-oesophageal reflux and others are not. We aimed to investigate what factors determine the occurrence and type of reflux during TLOSRs. In 12 healthy subjects prolonged high-resolution manometry was performed. Reflux was detected using pH-impedance monitoring. A total of 219 TLOSRs were detected; no differences were observed between the duration of TLOSRs with liquid-containing reflux (20.2 +/- 1.0 s), gas reflux (17.0 +/- 1.0 s) and no reflux (19.0 +/- 1.0 s). Trans-sphincteric pressure gradient was similar in TLOSRs with liquid reflux (1.6 +/- 0.1 kPa), gas reflux (1.5 +/- 0.1 kPa) and no reflux (1.7 +/- 0.3 kPa). Prevalence, duration and amplitude of oesophageal pre-contractions and sphincteric after-contractions were not different for TLOSRs with and without reflux. The total number of TLOSRs decreased significantly from 8.2 +/- 0.8 in the first to 5.7 +/- 0.5 in the second and 4.4 +/- 0.6 in the third 70-min recording period. The number of TLOSRs accompanied by liquid-containing reflux decreased from 4.7 +/- 0.9 to 3.0 +/- 0.4 to 1.6 +/- 0.4, while the numbers of TLOSRs with gas reflux remained unchanged (2.1 +/- 0.6-2.1 +/- 0.7-2.2 +/- 0.6). Besides, time after the meal, no differences were observed in the characteristics of TLOSRs with and without gastro-oesophageal reflux. We conclude that factors, other than TLOSR characteristics, are important of whether or not a TLOSR is reflux-related.     

Cardiovascular compression of the esophagus and spread of gastro‐esophageal reflux

Background Factors that determine the spread of gastro‐esophageal reflux (GER) along the length of the esophagus are not known. We investigated if cardiovascular (CV) compressions on the esophagus may determine the spread of refluxate into the proximal esophagus. Methods High‐resolution manometry (HRM) and multi‐channel intra‐luminal impedance recording (MIIR) were performed simultaneously in 10 normal subjects in the recumbent and upright positions. Pulsatile pressure increases on the esophagus (marker of CV compression) were identified on the HRM. Spread of refluxate into the esophagus was determined by the MIIR. Key Results Cardiovascular compression zones were observed in the esophagus in 9 out of 10 subjects in recumbent position. Forty percent of GER episodes were limited to the distal esophagus in the recumbent position and CV compression pressure was greater than distal esophageal pressure at the time of GER in all such cases. On the other hand, distal esophageal pressure was greater than CV compression pressure when the refluxate extended into the proximal esophagus. In the upright position, CV compression was less frequent than recumbent position and only 12% of GER episodes were limited to the distal esophagus. Conclusions & Inferences Cardiovascular compression of the esophagus is frequently observed in normal healthy subject and restricts the spread of refluxate into the proximal esophagus.     

The lower esophageal sphincter

The lower esophageal sphincters (LES) together with the crural diaphragm are the major antireflux barriers protecting the esophagus from reflux of gastric content. However, reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus is a normal phenomenon in healthy individuals occurring primarily during episodes of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR), defined as LES relaxation in the absence of a swallow. Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation is also the dominant mechanism of pathologic reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) patients. Frequency of TLESR does not differ significantly between healthy individuals and those with GERD, but TLESRs are more likely to be associated with acid reflux in GERD patients. Understanding the mechanisms responsible for elicitation of a TLESR, using recently introduced novel technology is an area of intense interest. Pharmacologic and non‐pharmacologic manipulation of receptors involved in the control of TLESR has recently emerged as a potential target for GERD therapy.     

High‐resolution manometric characteristics help differentiate types of distal esophageal obstruction in patients with peristalsis

Background High‐resolution manometry (HRM) can identify obstructive motor features at the esophagogastric junction and abnormalities in esophageal bolus transit. We sought to determine if HRM patterns can differentiate functional from organic mechanical lower esophageal sphincter (LES) obstruction. Methods Segmental characteristics of peristalsis were examined using HRM in symptomatic subjects with elevated postdeglutitive residual pressure gradients across the LES (≥5 mmHg). Sixteen consecutive patients with non‐achalasic mechanical fixed obstruction were compared with 13 patients with elevated pressure gradients yet no mechanical obstruction and 14 asymptomatic controls. Pressure volumes were determined in mmHg cm s for peristaltic segments defined on HRM Clouse plots using an on‐screen pressure volume measurement tool. Key Results Residual pressure gradients were similarly elevated in both patient groups. A visually conspicuous and distinctive shift in the proportionate pressure strengths of the second and third peristaltic segments was apparent across groups. Whereas the ratios of peak pressures and pressure volumes between second and third segments approached 1 in controls (0.92, 0.98), pressures shifted to the second segment in mechanical obstruction (peak pressure ratio: 1.2 ± 0.4; pressure volume ratio: 1.8 ± 0.9) and to the third segment in functional obstruction (peak ratio: 0.7 ± 0.2; volume ratio: 0.5 ± 0.2; P < 0.02 for any comparison of either group with controls). A threshold volume ratio of 1.0 correctly segregated 93% of obstruction (P < 0.0001); visual pattern inspection was equally effective. Conclusions & Inferences When elevated residual pressure gradients are present in non‐achalasic patients, topographic characteristics of peristalsis can differentiate fixed mechanical obstruction from functional obstruction.