Role of stationary esophageal manometry in clinical practice. Manometric results in patients with gastroesophageal reflux, dysphagia or non-cardiac chest pain.

The present study was carried out to evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of stationary esophageal manometry in 263 patients divided into three groups: 150 patients with reflux symptoms, 68 with dysphagia, and 45 with non-cardiac chest pain. Patients with endoscopic abnormalities were excluded. Standard manometry was performed following the station pull-through technique. In the group of patients with reflux symptoms 40.7% had a normal manometry and 57.3% had abnormalities, being the most frequent (43%) hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter. In the dysphagia group, 20.6% of manometries were normal and 79.4% were abnormal, of which achalasia was the most frequent disorder (53.7%). In the case of non-cardiac chest pain, 42.2% of patients had a normal manometry and 57.8% an abnormal one, of which hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter was the most frequent abnormality. A significant higher proportion of manometric alterations were found in the dysphagia group compared to reflux symptoms and non-cardiac chest pain (p < 0.05). No statistical differences were found between the reflux and the non-cardiac chest pain groups. Manometry yields a higher diagnostic value in patients with dysphagia, and therefore manometry should be performed routinely after the exclusion of any organic esophageal disease. Manometry is not a first-choice functional diagnostic test in the study of patirnts with gastroesophageal reflux or non-cardiac chest pain.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with clinical unstable angina and known coronary artery disease

Objectives: Esophageal disease may mimic acute anginal pain. However, the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in the acute setting of patients with clinically unstable angina (UA) pectoris is not known. The aim of this study was to determine the co‐existence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and gastroesophageal reflux in UA, and to study the feasibility of esophageal investigation in the chest pain unit. Design: 22 patients with clinical UA and confirmed CAD were monitored by continuous vector cardiography and pH‐measurement during 24?h of observation. Symptoms of chest pain and episodes of ischemia and reflux were recorded. Results: 11 patients (50%) showed abnormal gastroesophageal reflux and another three (14%) had an increased number of reflux episodes. pH‐measurements and esophageal manometry were well tolerated. Few chest pain episodes were recorded during the study period, and no association between chest pain, reflux, and ischemia could be shown. Conclusion: Esophageal reflux is common in patients with UA and established CAD. As reflux‐related chest pain may imitate angina pectoris, it is clinically important that gastroesophageal examination in patients with UA seems to be feasible and well tolerated in the ‘acute setting’.     

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.     

Non-cardiac, non-oesophageal chest pain: the relevance of psychological factors

Background—No cause has been determined for chest pain that is neither cardiac nor oesophageal in origin.
Aims—To compare the prevalence of lifetime psychiatric disorders and current psychological distress in three consecutive series of patients with chronic chest or abdominal pain.
Patients—Thirty nine patients with non-cardiac chest pain and no abnormality on oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, oesophageal manometry, and 24 hour pH monitoring; 22 patients with non-cardiac chest pain having endoscopic abnormality, oesophageal dysmotility, and/or pathological reflux; and 36 patients with biliary colic.
Methods—The Diagnostic Interview Schedule and the 28 item General Health Questionnaire were administered to all patients.
Results—Patients with non-cardiac chest pain and no upper gastrointestinal disease had a higher proportion of panic disorder (15%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (21%), and major depressive episodes (28%) than patients with gallstone disease (0%, p<0.02; 3%, p<0.02; and 8%, p<0.05, respectively). In contrast, there were no differences between patients with non-cardiac chest pain and upper gastrointestinal disease and patients with gallstone disease in any of the DSM-111 defined lifetime psychiatric diagnoses. Using the General Health Questionnaire, 49% of patients with non-cardiac chest pain without upper gastrointestinal disease scored above the cut off point (that is, more than 4), which was considered indicative of non-psychotic psychiatric disturbance, whereas only 14% of patients with gallstones did so (p<0.005). The proportions of such cases were however similar between patients with non-cardiac chest pain and upper gastrointestinal disease (27%) and patients with gallstones.
Conclusions—Psychological factors may play a role in the pathogenesis of chest pain that is neither cardiac nor oesophagogastric in origin.

Keywords: chest pain;  oesophageal manometry;  gastro-oesophageal reflux disease;  oesophageal pH monitoring;  psychiatric illness

     

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.     

Does combined multichannel intraluminal esophageal impedance and manometry predict postoperative dysphagia after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication?

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) is an effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease; however, some patients develop dysphagia postoperatively. Manometry is used to evaluate disorders of peristalsis, but has not been proven useful to identify which patients may be at risk for postoperative dysphagia. Multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) evaluates the effective clearance of a swallowed bolus through the esophagus. We hypothesized that MII combined with manometry may detect those patients most at risk of developing dysphagia after LNF. Between March 2003 and January 2007, 74 patients who agreed to participate in this study were prospectively enrolled. All patients completed a preoperative symptom questionnaire, MII/manometry, and 24‐h pH monitoring. All patients underwent LNF. Symptom questionnaires were administered postoperatively at a median of 18 months (range: 6–46 months), and we defined dysphagia (both preoperatively and postoperatively) as occurring more than once a month with a severity ≥4 (0–10 Symptom Severity Index). Thirty‐two patients (43%) reported preoperative dysphagia, but there was no significant difference in pH monitoring, lower esophageal sphincter pressure/relaxation, peristalsis, liquid or viscous bolus transit (MII), or bolus transit time (MII) between patients with and without preoperative dysphagia. In those patients reporting preoperative dysphagia, the severity of dysphagia improved significantly from 6.8 ± 2 to 2.6 ± 3.4 (P < 0.001) after LNF. Thirteen (17%) patients reported dysphagia postoperatively, 10 of whom (75%) reported some degree of preoperative dysphagia. The presence of postoperative dysphagia was significantly more common in patients with preoperative dysphagia (P= 0.01). Patients with postoperative dysphagia had similar lower esophageal sphincter pressure and relaxation, peristalsis, and esophageal clearance to those without dysphagia. Neither MII nor manometry predicts dysphagia in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or its occurrence after LNF. The presence of dysphagia preoperatively is the only predictor of dysphagia after LNF.     

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.     

Technology insight: The role of impedance testing for esophageal disorders

Classic techniques like videofluoroscopy, stationary manometry, and ambulatory 24 h pH-metry are routinely used in the clinic to study patients with dysphagia, chest pain and reflux-related symptoms. Although these techniques have been very useful over the years, both for diagnosis and for therapeutic guidance, there are still many patients with dysphagia or chest pain who remain undiagnosed even after testing, and patients with typical and atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, with normal pH-metry findings, who do not respond adequately to antisecretory therapy. Esophageal impedance monitoring is a new technique that can be used alone and in combination with pH-metry and manometry to evaluate bolus transport and all types of gastroesophageal reflux (acid and nonacid). This review describes the esophageal impedance monitoring technique and summarizes the published validation studies that compare impedance monitoring with other methods, as well as normal values and reproducibility of impedance patterns and their association with symptoms.     

Consenso mexicano sobre dolor torácico no cardiaco

IntroductionNon-cardiac chest pain is defined as a clinical syndrome characterized by retrosternal pain similar to that of angina pectoris, but of non-cardiac origin and produced by esophageal, musculoskeletal, pulmonary, or psychiatric diseases.AimTo present a consensus review based on evidence regarding the definition, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain, as well as the therapeutic options for those patients.MethodsThree general coordinators carried out a literature review of all articles published in English and Spanish on the theme and formulated 38 initial statements, dividing them into 3 main categories: (i) definitions, epidemiology, and pathophysiology; (ii) diagnosis, and (iii) treatment. The statements underwent 3 rounds of voting, utilizing the Delphi system. The final statements were those that reached > 75% agreement, and they were rated utilizing the GRADE system.Results and conclusionsThe final consensus included 29 statements. All patients presenting with chest pain should initially be evaluated by a cardiologist. The most common cause of non-cardiac chest pain is gastroesophageal reflux disease. If there are no alarm symptoms, the initial approach should be a therapeutic trial with a proton pump inhibitor for 2-4 weeks. If dysphagia or alarm symptoms are present, endoscopy is recommended. High-resolution manometry is the best method for ruling out spastic motor disorders and achalasia and pH monitoring aids in demonstrating abnormal esophageal acid exposure. Treatment should be directed at the pathophysiologic mechanism. It can include proton pump inhibitors, neuromodulators and/or smooth muscle relaxants, psychologic intervention and/or cognitive therapy, and occasionally surgery or endoscopic therapy.     

Peristaltic dysfunction associated with nonobstructive dysphagia in reflux disease

An evaluation was done of 325 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal manometry to investigate the relationship between solid food dysphagia and peristaltic dysfunction in gastroesophageal reflux disease. All patients with dysphagia were endoscoped to evaluate for mechanical obstruction. Manometry was done focusing on the incidence of peristaltic dysfunction (failed peristaltic sequences or sequences characterized by foci of hypotensive peristalsis). The major finding was that the severity of manometrically demonstrated peristaltic dysfunction in reflux patients correlated with the prevalence of dysphagia. After excluding patients with esophageal rings or strictures from the analysis, the overall prevalence of dysphagia was 39% among the 157 reflux patients. Within this group, 29% of patients with minimal peristaltic dysfunction experienced dysphagia compared to 78% of patients with severe peristaltic dysfunction. We conclude that peristaltic dysfunction should be considered along with mechanical obstruction as a potential cause of dysphagia in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.     

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.     

Predictive Value of Symptom Profiles in Patients with Suspected Oesophageal Dysmotility

Bak Y-T. Lorang M. Evans PR. Kellow JE, Jones MP, Smith RC. Predictive value of symptom profiles in patients with suspected oesophageal dysmotility. Scand J Gastroenterol 1994;29:392-397.

The main aim of the study was to determine prospectively, in patients referred for oesophageal manometry, whether certain combinations of oesophageal symptoms are more likely than others to predict the presence of oesophageal dysmotility or a positive response to acid perfusion testing. In 524 consecutive patients, presenting predominantly with (non-cardiac) chest pain (n = 277), dysphagia (n = 186), or heartburn (n = 61), a standardized symptom assessment was completed before oesophageal manometry and acid perfusion testing. Half the patients in each group reported additional (‘secondary’) oesophageal symptoms as well as the predominant symptom. Oesophageal dysmotility was categorized in accordance with standard manometric criteria for achalasia, diffuse oesophageal spasm, nutcracker oesophagus, hypertensive lower oesophageal sphincter, or non-specific oesophageal motility disorder. In the predominant chest pain group, the prevalence of abnormal manometry was 33%; in the presence of secondary symptoms, especially dysphagia rather than heartburn, however, the prevalence was significantly (p < 0.01) increased. Also in the predominant chest pain group the prevalence of positive acid perfusion testing (44%) was significantly greater (p<0.05) in those with than in those without secondary symptoms. In the predominant dysphagia group, the prevalence of abnormal manometry was higher than in the other two groups (56%; p < 0.001) but was not affected by the presence or absence of secondary symptoms; this latter finding was also true for the predominant heartburn group. The distribution of specific manometric disorders in any group was not related to the presence or type of secondary symptoms, although a combination of dysphagia and chest pain discriminated achalasia from other manometric disorders. Additional oesophageal symptoms can thus be useful in predicting the results of oesophageal function testing in patients presenting with non-cardiac chest pain but not in patients presenting with predominant non-obstructive dysphagia.     

Management of achalasia with transabdominal esophagocardiomyotomy and partial posterior fundoplication

In this article we present our experience in the management of achalasia. From May 1988 through August 2005, 71 patients with achalasia underwent transabdominal esophagocardiomyotomy and partial posterior fundoplication. Barium swallow, manometry, and 24-h pH studies were performed in all patients preoperatively. Manometry and 24-h pH monitoring were only carried out in 58 patients at the third post-operative week and in 43 patients during follow-up, even though 52 patients were included in the follow-up. There were no operative deaths or complications. All the 71 patients were able to eat semifluid or solid food without dysphagia and heartburn at discharge. Esophageal barium studies showed that the maximum esophageal diameter decreased 2.2 cm and the minimum gastroesophageal junction diameter increased 8.4 mm after operation. Manometry examination in 58 patients revealed that the lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure decreased 15.0 mmHg in the wake of the procedure. Twenty-four hour pH monitoring demonstrated that reflux events were within the normal post-operative range. Fifty-five of the 58 patients had normal DeMeester scores. Among the patients with a mean 90-month follow-up, 49 patients had normal intake of food without reflux, the remaining three had mild dysphagia without requiring treatment. All the patients resumed their preoperative work and social activities. The manometry and 24-h pH studies in the 43 patients showed there were no significant changes between the third post-operative week and during follow-up. Transabdominal esophagocardiomyotomy and posterior partial fundoplication are able to relieve the functional outflow obstruction of the lower esophageal sphincter, obviate the rehealing of the myotomy edge and prevent gastroesophageal reflux in patients who have undergone myotomy alone.     

High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with clinical unstable angina and known coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES: Esophageal disease may mimic acute anginal pain. However, the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux in the acute setting of patients with clinically unstable angina (UA) pectoris is not known. The aim of this study was to determine the co-existence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and gastroesophageal reflux in UA, and to study the feasibility of esophageal investigation in the chest pain unit. DESIGN: 22 patients with clinical UA and confirmed CAD were monitored by continuous vector cardiography and pH-measurement during 24 h of observation. Symptoms of chest pain and episodes of ischemia and reflux were recorded. RESULTS: 11 patients (50%) showed abnormal gastroesophageal reflux and another three (14%) had an increased number of reflux episodes. pH-measurements and esophageal manometry were well tolerated. Few chest pain episodes were recorded during the study period, and no association between chest pain, reflux, and ischemia could be shown. CONCLUSION: Esophageal reflux is common in patients with UA and established CAD. As reflux-related chest pain may imitate angina pectoris, it is clinically important that gastroesophageal examination in patients with UA seems to be feasible and well tolerated in the 'acute setting'.     

Esophageal motor abnormalities in eosinophilic esophagitis identified by high-resolution manometry

Background and Aim: Esophageal motility abnormalities, as measured by conventional manometry (CM), are non‐specific in the majority of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Moreover, the study of CM is limited by poor interobserver agreement. The aims of the present study were: (i) to assess the esophageal patterns in EoE by a topographic analysis of high‐resolution manometry (HRM) data; and (ii) to establish a relationship between motility abnormalities and symptoms of EoE, such as dysphagia and bolus impaction. Methods: All adult patients with EoE diagnosed according to histological criteria, and controls with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and dysphagia, were included. HRM was done in EoE patients and controls. For the analysis of data, the Chicago classification was followed. Results: HRM was performed in 21 patients with EoE, as well as in 21 controls. Of the 21 patients with EoE, 10 (48%) showed pan‐esophageal pressurization, six (28%) showed peristaltic dysfunction, and in five cases (24%), HRM was normal. There was no pan‐esophageal pressurization in controls. Nine of 10 patients with pan‐esophageal pressurization required endoscopic bolus removal (P < 0.05); none had obstructive endoscopy findings. Conclusions: The most frequent esophageal motor abnormality measured by HRM was a pan‐esophageal pressurization. Bolus impaction in patients with EoE was associated with pan‐esophageal pressurization.     

Influence of Bolus Consistency and Position on Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Findings

Background Conventional esophageal manometry evaluating liquid swallows in the recumbent position measures pressure changes at a limited number of sites and does not assess motility during solid swallows in the physiologic upright position. Aim To evaluate esophageal motility abnormalities during water and bread swallows in the upright and recumbent positions using high-resolution manometry (HRM). Methods Thirty-two-channel HRM testing was performed using water (10 ml each) and bread swallows in the upright and recumbent positions. The swallows were considered normal if the distal peristaltic segment >30 mmHg was >5 cm, ineffective if the 30-mmHg pressure band was <5 cm, and simultaneous if the onset velocity of the 30 mmHg pressure band was >8 cm/s. Abnormal esophageal manometry was defined as the presence of ≥30% ineffective and/or ≥20% simultaneous contractions. Results The data from 96 patients (48 F; mean age 51 years, range 17–79) evaluated for dysphagia (56%), chest pain (22%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (22%) were reviewed. During recumbent water swallows, patients with dysphagia, chest pain, and GERD had a similar prevalence of motility abnormalities. During upright bread swallows, motility abnormalities were more frequent (p = 0.01) in patients with chest pain (71%) and GERD (67%) compared to patients with dysphagia (37%). Conclusions Evaluating bread swallows in the upright position reveals differences in motility abnormalities overlooked by liquid swallows alone. This work was presented as an abstract at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2006, Los Angeles, CA, 20–25 May 2006.