Pressure-impedance analysis: Assist the diagnosis and classification of ineffective esophageal motility disorder

Comparative Prevalence of Ineffective Esophageal Motility: Impact of Chicago v4.0 vs. v3.0 Criteria

Background and Objectives: The threshold for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) diagnosis was changed in Chicago v4.0. Our aim was to determine IEM prevalence using the new criteria and the differences between patients with definite IEM versus "inconclusive diagnosis". Materials and Methods: We retrospectively selected IEM and fragmented peristalsis (FP) patients from the high-resolution esophageal manometries (HREMs) database. Clinical, demographic data and manometric parameters were recorded. Results: Of 348 HREMs analyzed using Chicago v3.0, 12.3% of patients had IEM and 0.86% had FP. Using Chicago v4.0, 8.9% of patients had IEM (IEM-4 group). We compared them with the remaining 16 with an inconclusive diagnosis of IEM (borderline group). Dysphagia (77% vs. 44%, Z-test = 2.3, p = 0.02) and weight loss were more commonly observed in IEM-4 compared to the borderline group. The reflux symptoms were more prevalent in the borderline group (87.5% vs. 70.9%, p = 0.2). Type 2 or 3 esophagogastric junction morphology was more prevalent in the borderline group (81.2%) vs. 64.5% in IEM-4 (p = 0.23). Distal contractile integral (DCI) was lower in IEM-4 vs. the borderline group, and resting lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and mean integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) were similar. The number of ineffective swallows and failed swallows was higher in IEM-4 compared to the borderline group. Conclusions: Using Chicago v4.0, less than 10% of patients had a definite diagnosis of IEM. The dominant symptom was dysphagia. Only DCI and the number of failed and inefficient swallows were different between definite IEM patients and borderline cases.

Bolus transit of upper esophageal sphincter on high-resolution impedance manometry study correlate with the laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms

Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptom is a troublesome upper esophageal problem, and reflux symptom index (RSI) is commonly applied for the assessment of clinical severity. We investigated the relationship between the upper esophageal sphincter impedance integral (UESII) and RSI scores in this study. Totally 158 subjects with high-resolution esophageal impedance manometry (HRIM) with RSI questionnaire assessment were recruited. There are 57 (36.08%), 74 (46.84%), 21 (13.29%), and 6 (3.79%) patients were categorized as normal, ineffective esophageal motility disorder, absent contractility, and achalasia by HRIM examination, respectively. Subjects with RSI > 13 were noted to have lower UESII than others with RSI ≦ 13 (7363.14 ± 1085.58 vs. 11,833.75 ± 918.77 Ω s cm; P < 0.005). The ROC analysis yielded a UESII cutoff of < 2900 Ω s cm for the best prediction of subjects with RSI > 13 (P = 0.002). Both female gender and UESII cutoff of < 2900 Ω s cm were significant predictors of RSI > 13 in logistic regression analysis (OR = 3.84 and 2.83; P = 0.001 and 0.01; respectively). Lower UESII on HRIM study, indicating poor bolus transit of UES during saline swallows, is significantly associated with prominent laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms scored by RSI score.

Chicago Classification update (V4.0): Technical review on diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and absent contractility

Esophageal hypomotility disorders manifest with abnormal esophageal body contraction vigor, breaks in peristaltic integrity, or failure of peristalsis in the context of normal lower esophageal sphincter relaxation on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). The Chicago Classification version 4.0 recognizes two hypomotility disorders, ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and absent contractility, while fragmented peristalsis has been incorporated into the IEM definition. Updated criteria for ineffective swallows consist of weak esophageal body contraction vigor measured using distal contractile integral (DCI, 100-450 mmHg·cm·s), transition zone defects >5 cm measured using a 20 mmHg isobaric contour, or failure of peristalsis (DCI < 100 mmHg·cm·s). More than 70% ineffective swallows and/or ≥50% failed swallows are required for a conclusive diagnosis of IEM. When the diagnosis is inconclusive (50%-70% ineffective swallows), supplementary evidence from multiple rapid swallows (absence of contraction reserve), barium radiography (abnormal bolus clearance), or HRM with impedance (abnormal bolus clearance) could support a diagnosis of IEM. Absent contractility requires 100% failed peristalsis, consistent with previous versions of the classification. Consideration needs to be given for the possibility of achalasia in absent contractility with dysphagia despite normal IRP, and alternate complementary tests (including timed upright barium esophagram and functional lumen imaging probe) are recommended to confirm or refute the presence of achalasia. Future research to quantify esophageal bolus retention on stationary HRM with impedance and to understand contraction vigor thresholds that predict bolus clearance will provide further refinement to diagnostic criteria for esophageal hypomotility disorders in future iterations of the Chicago Classification.

Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0©

Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty-two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two-years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.