The clinical utility of esophageal manometry

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings that do no not explain dysphagia are associated with underutilization of high-resolution manometry

In patients with dysphagia that is not explained by upper endoscopy, high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is the next logical step in diagnostic testing. This study investigated predictors of failure to refer for HRM after an upper endoscopy that was performed for but did not explain dysphagia. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients >18 years of age who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for dysphagia from 2015 to 2021. Patients with EGD findings that explained dysphagia (e.g. esophageal mass, eosinophilic esophagitis, Schatzki ring, etc.) were excluded from the main analyses. The primary outcome was failure to refer for HRM within 1 year of the index non-diagnostic EGD. We also investigated delayed referral for HRM, defined as HRM performed after the median. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify risk factors that independently predicted failure to refer for HRM, conditioned on the providing endoscopist. Among 2132 patients who underwent EGD for dysphagia, 1240 (58.2%) did not have findings to explain dysphagia on the index EGD. Of these 1240 patients, 148 (11.9%) underwent HRM within 1 year of index EGD. Endoscopic findings (e.g. hiatal hernia, tortuous esophagus, Barrett's esophagus, surgically altered anatomy not involving the gastroesophageal junction, and esophageal varices) perceived to explain dysphagia were independently associated with failure to refer for HRM (adjusted odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.80). Of the 148 patients who underwent HRM within 1 year of index EGD, 29.7% were diagnosed with a disorder of esophagogastric junction outflow, 17.6% with a disorder of peristalsis, and 2.0% with both disorders of esophagogastric outflow and peristalsis. The diagnosis made by HRM was similar among those who had incidental EGD findings that were non-diagnostic for dysphagia compared with those who had completely normal EGD findings. Demographic factors including race/ethnicity, insurance type, and income were not associated with failure to refer for HRM or delayed HRM. Patients with dysphagia and endoscopic findings unrelated to dysphagia have a similar prevalence of esophageal motility disorders to those with normal endoscopic examinations, yet these patients are less likely to undergo HRM. Provider education is indicated to increase HRM referral in these patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Oropharyngeal Dysphagia

OBJECTIVE

Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one's physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia.

METHODS

Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended.

CONCLUSION

This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

The role of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal manometry in clinical practice

High-resolution manometry revolutionized the assessment of esophageal motility disorders and upgraded the classification through the Chicago Classification. A known disadvantage of standard HRM, however, is the inability to record esophageal motility function for an extended time interval; therefore, it represents only a more snapshot view of esophageal motor function. In contrast, ambulatory esophageal manometry measures esophageal motility over a prolonged period and detects motor activity during the entire circadian cycle. Furthermore, ambulatory manometry has the ability to measure temporal correlations between symptoms and motor events. This article aimed to review the clinical implications of ambulatory esophageal manometry for various symptoms, covering literature on the manometry catheter, interpretation of findings, and relevance in clinical practice specific to the evaluation of non-cardiac chest pain, chronic cough, and rumination syndrome.

Clinical utility of gastric emptying scintigraphy: Patient and physician perspectives

BACKGROUND

The use of gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES) in the evaluation of patients with dyspeptic symptoms is controversial. Our aim was to investigate objective and subjective parameters of clinical utility of GES from the perspectives of both the patient and the ordering physician.

METHODS

Socio-demographic features, healthcare resource utilization, gastroparetic symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were obtained from consecutive patients referred for GES immediately prior to GES and again 4 months later. The ordering physician received a brief survey 2 weeks after the GES regarding their perceptions on whether the test provided them with clinically useful information.

KEY RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-two (mean age ± SD 52.0 ± 17.9; 78% female) of 266 patients enrolled completed both the baseline and follow-up questionnaires and comprised our study population. At baseline, patients with abnormal GES had significantly higher gastroparesis symptom scores and reduced QoL. At the 4-month follow-up, an improvement in symptoms and QoL was seen, but the degree of improvement was not significantly different between those with a normal or abnormal GES. One hundred and ninety-seven ordering physicians completed the survey and perceived that GES, particularly when abnormal, provided new information (91%) and resulted in a change in diagnosis (58%) and management (60%).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Although patients with an abnormal GES generally had worse symptoms and lower QoL, the results of GES did not help to identify those with improved or worsened symptoms or QoL at follow-up. Nevertheless, the ordering physicians generally felt that the results of GES were helpful in managing these patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Assessment of Uninvestigated Esophageal Dysphagia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Our aim is to review the literature and provide guidelines for the assessment of uninvestigated dysphagia.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified studies on dysphagia. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were discussed and revised via small group meetings, teleconferences, and a web-based platform until consensus was reached by the full group.

RESULTS

The consensus includes 13 statements focused on the role of strategies for the assessment of esophageal dysphagia. In patients presenting with dysphagia, oropharyngeal dysphagia should be identified promptly because of the risk of aspiration. For patients with esophageal dysphagia, history can be used to help differentiate structural from motility disorders and to elicit alarm features. An empiric trial of proton pump inhibitor therapy should be limited to four weeks in patients with esophageal dysphagia who have reflux symptoms and no additional alarm features. For patients with persistent dysphagia, endoscopy, including esophageal biopsy, was recommended over barium esophagram for the assessment of structural and mucosal esophageal disease. Barium esophagram may be useful when the availability of endoscopy is limited. Esophageal manometry was recommended for diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders, and high-resolution was recommended over conventional manometry.

CONCLUSIONS

Once oropharyngeal dysphagia is ruled out, patients with symptoms of esophageal dysphagia should be assessed by history and physical examination, followed by endoscopy to identify structural and inflammatory lesions. If these are ruled out, then manometry is recommended for the diagnosis of esophageal dysmotility.

Incidence of Achalasia in South Australia Based on Esophageal Manometry Findings

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Achalasia is a disorder of esophageal motility with a reported incidence of 0.5 to 1.6 per 100,000 persons per year in Europe, Asia, Canada, and America. However, estimates of incidence values have been derived predominantly from retrospective searches of databases of hospital discharge codes and personal communications with gastroenterologists, and are likely to be incorrect. We performed a cohort study based on esophageal manometry findings to determine the incidence of achalasia in South Australia.

METHODS

We collected data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the South Australian population. Cases of achalasia diagnosed by esophageal manometry were identified from the 3 adult manometry laboratory databases in South Australia. Endoscopy reports and case notes were reviewed for correlations with diagnoses. The annual incidence of achalasia in the South Australian population was calculated for the decade 2004 to 2013. Findings were standardized to those of the European Standard Population based on age.

RESULTS

The annual incidence of achalasia in South Australia ranged from 2.3 to 2.8 per 100,000 persons. The mean age at diagnosis was 62.1 ± 18.1 years. The incidence of achalasia increased with age (Spearman rho, 0.95; P < .01). The age-standardized incidence ranged from 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) to 2.5 (95% CI, 2.2-2.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a cohort study of esophageal manometry, we determined the incidence of achalasia in South Australia to be 2.3 to 2.8 per 100,000 persons and to increase with age. South Australia's relative geographic isolation and the population's access to manometry allowed for more accurate identification of cases than hospital code analyses, with a low probability of missed cases.

Persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor therapy

About one-third of patients with suspected gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not respond symptomatically to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Many of these patients do not suffer from GERD, but may have underlying functional heartburn or atypical chest pain. Other causes of failure to respond to PPIs include inadequate acid suppression, non-acid reflux, oesophageal hypersensitivity, oesophageal dysmotility and psychological comorbidities. Functional oesophageal tests can exclude cardiac and structural causes, as well as help to confi rm or exclude GERD. The use of PPIs should only be continued in the presence of acid reflux or oesophageal hypersensitivity for acid reflux-related events that is proven on functional oesophageal tests.

Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophageal manometry is the standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Variations in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry result in discrepant diagnoses and unnecessary repeated procedures, and could have negative effects on patient outcomes. We need a method to benchmark the procedural quality of esophageal manometry; as such, our objective was to formally develop quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry.

METHODS

We used the RAND University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) to develop validated quality measures for performing and interpreting esophageal manometry. The research team identified potential quality measures through a literature search and interviews with experts. Fourteen experts in esophageal manometry ranked the proposed quality measures for appropriateness via a 2-round process on the basis of RAM.

RESULTS

The experts considered a total of 29 measures; 17 were ranked as appropriate and were as follows: related to competency (2), assessment before the esophageal manometry procedure (2), the esophageal manometry procedure itself (3), and interpretation of data (10). The data interpretation measures were integrated into a single composite measure. Eight measures therefore were found to be appropriate quality measures for esophageal manometry . Five other factors also were endorsed by the experts, although these were not ranked as appropriate quality measures.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 8 formally validated quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry on the basis of RAM. These measures represent key aspects of a high-quality esophageal manometry study and should be adopted uniformly. These measures should be evaluated in clinical practice to determine how they affect patient outcomes.

High-Resolution Manometry Improves the Diagnosis of Esophageal Motility Disorders in Patients With Dysphagia: A Randomized Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

High-resolution manometry (HRM) might be superior to conventional manometry (CM) to diagnose esophageal motility disorders. We aimed to compare the diagnosis performed with HRM and CM and confirmed at 6 months in a multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients with unexplained dysphagia were randomized to undergo either CM or HRM. Motility disorders were diagnosed using the Castell and Spechler classification for CM and the Chicago classification for HRM. Diagnosis confirmation was based on clinical outcome and response to treatment after 6-month follow-up. The initial diagnosis and percentage of confirmed diagnoses were compared between the two arms (CM and HRM).

RESULTS

In total, 247 patients were randomized and 245 analyzed: 122 in the CM arm and 123 in the HRM arm. A manometric diagnosis was more frequently initially achieved with HRM than with CM (97% vs. 84%; P<0.01). Achalasia was more frequent in the HRM arm (26% vs. 12% in the CM arm; P<0.01) while normal examinations were more frequent in the CM arm (52% vs. 28% in the HRM arm; P<0.05). After follow-up, the initial diagnosis was confirmed in 89% of patients in the HRM arm vs. 81% in the CM arm (P=0.07). Finally, overall procedure tolerance was better with CM than with HRM (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized trial demonstrated an improved diagnostic yield for achalasia with HRM compared with CM. Diagnoses tended to be more frequently confirmed in patients who underwent HRM, suggesting that esophageal motility disorders could be identified earlier with HRM than with CM (ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT01284894).

The Proton Pump Inhibitor Non-Responder: A Clinical Conundrum

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a highly prevalent chronic condition where in stomach contents reflux into the esophagus causing symptoms, esophageal injury, and subsequent complications. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) remain the mainstay of therapy for acid suppression. Despite their efficacy, significant proportions of GERD patients are either partial or non-responders to PPI therapy. Patients should be assessed for mechanisms that can lead to PPI failure and may require further evaluation to investigate for alternative causes. This monograph will outline a diagnostic approach to the PPI non-responder, review mechanisms associated with PPI failure, and discuss therapeutic options for those who fail to respond to PPI therapy.

The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a highly prevalent condition that imposes a significant economic impact on the US health care system. The utility of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease has not been adequately reviewed.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to provide an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. EMBASE (1980-December 2008), OVID MEDLINE, and PubMed, (1966-December 2008) were searched using "gastroesophageal reflux" and "adults" with other terms, including medications, diagnostic tests, symptoms, and epidemiologic terms. Studies were limited to human trials, English language, and full articles.

RESULTS

Heartburn is a reasonably sensitive symptom for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease, although it does not reliably predict esophagitis. Standardized questionnaires have limited specificity, whereas the double-contrast barium swallow has a low sensitivity to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux. The role of esophageal manometry is limited to accurate placement of a pH-measuring device. pH testing has reasonable sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The sensitivity of upper endoscopy to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux is lower than that of pH tests.

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease remains difficult. In the absence of alarm symptoms, empiric treatment with acid suppression is warranted. pH testing provides valuable information in many patients, although the clinical utility of newer tests needs to be determined. Endoscopy should not be the first test used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux.