Fragmented and failed swallows on esophageal high-resolution manometry associate with abnormal reflux burden better than weak swallows

Esophageal motor abnormalities in gastroesophageal reflux disorders

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a prevalent condition with multifactorial pathogenesis, involves esophageal motor dysmotility as a key contributing factor to its development. When suspected GERD patients have an inadequate response to proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and normal upper endoscopy results, high-resolution manometry (HRM) is utilized to rule out alternative diagnosis such as achalasia spectrum disorders, rumination, or supragastric belching. At present, HRM continues to provide supportive evidence for diagnosing GERD and determining the appropriate treatment. This review focuses on the existing understanding of the connection between esophageal motor findings and the pathogenesis of GERD, along with the significance of esophageal HRM in managing GERD patients. The International GERD Consensus Working Group introduced a three-step method, assessing the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), esophageal body motility, and contraction reserve with multiple rapid swallow (MRS) maneuvers. Crucial HRM abnormalities in GERD include frequent transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations, disrupted EGJ, and esophageal body hypomotility. Emerging HRM metrics like EGJ-contractile integral and innovative provocative maneuver like straight leg raise have the potential to enhance our understanding of factors contributing to GERD, thereby increasing the value of HRM performed in patients who experience symptoms suspected of GERD.

Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Diagnosis and Management

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common, with increasing worldwide disease prevalence and high economic burden. A significant number of patients will remain symptomatic following an empiric proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial. Persistent symptoms despite PPI therapy are often mislabeled as refractory GERD. For patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD), testing is performed off antisecretory therapy to identify objective evidence of pathologic reflux using criteria outlined by the Lyon consensus. In proven GERD, differentiation between refractory symptoms (persisting symptoms despite optimized antisecretory therapy) and refractory GERD (abnormal reflux metrics on ambulatory pH impedance monitoring and/or persistent erosive esophagitis on endoscopy while on optimized PPI therapy) can direct subsequent management. While refractory symptoms may arise from esophageal hypersensitivity or functional heartburn, proven refractory GERD requires personalization of the management approach, tapping from an array of non-pharmacologic, pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical interventions. Proper diagnosis and management of refractory GERD is critical to mitigate undesirable long-term complications such as strictures, Barrett's esophagus, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This review outlines the diagnostic workup of patients presenting with refractory GERD symptoms, describes the distinction between unproven and proven GERD, and provides a comprehensive review of the current treatment strategies available for the management of refractory GERD.

Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0

The Lyon Consensus provides conclusive criteria for and against the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adjunctive metrics that consolidate or refute GERD diagnosis when primary criteria are borderline or inconclusive. An international core and working group was assembled to evaluate research since publication of the original Lyon Consensus, and to vote on statements collaboratively developed to update criteria. The Lyon Consensus 2.0 provides a modern definition of actionable GERD, where evidence from oesophageal testing supports revising, escalating or personalising GERD management for the symptomatic patient. Symptoms that have a high versus low likelihood of relationship to reflux episodes are described. Unproven versus proven GERD define diagnostic strategies and testing options. Patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD) are studied using prolonged wireless pH monitoring or catheter-based pH or pH-monitoring off antisecretory medication, while patients with conclusive GERD evidence (proven GERD) and persisting symptoms are evaluated using pH-impedance monitoring while on optimised antisecretory therapy. The major changes from the original Lyon Consensus criteria include establishment of Los Angeles grade B oesophagitis as conclusive GERD evidence, description of metrics and thresholds to be used with prolonged wireless pH monitoring, and inclusion of parameters useful in diagnosis of refractory GERD when testing is performed on antisecretory therapy in proven GERD. Criteria that have not performed well in the diagnosis of actionable GERD have been retired. Personalisation of investigation and management to each patient's unique presentation will optimise GERD diagnosis and management.

Chicago Classification v4.0 Stratifies Acid Burden and Abnormal Impedance-pH Variables Better Than Chicago Classification v3.0 Chicago Classification v4.0 and GERD

INTRODUCTION

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) severity increases with esophageal body hypomotility, but the impact of Chicago Classification (CC) v4.0 criteria on GERD diagnosis is incompletely understood.

METHODS

In patients with GERD evaluated with high-resolution manometry and pH-impedance monitoring, CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 diagnoses were compared.

RESULTS

In 247 patients, hypomotility diagnosis decreased from 45.3% (CCv3.0) to 30.0% (CCv4.0, P < 0.001). In contrast, within patients with ineffective esophageal motility, proportions with pathological acid exposure increased from 38% (CCv3.0) to 88% (CCv4.0); baseline impedance and esophageal clearance demonstrated similar findings ( P < 0.05 for each comparison).

DISCUSSION

CCv4.0 hypomotility criteria are more specific in supporting GERD evidence compared with CCv3.0.

Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Improves Stratification of Ineffective Esophageal Motility Patients into Clinically Meaningful Subtypes: A Two-Center International Study

The 4th iteration of the Chicago Classification (CC v4.0) for esophageal motility disorders offers more restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to version 3.0 (CC v3.0). In light of the updated criteria for IEM, we aimed to characterize and compare the patients who retained their IEM diagnosis to those who were reclassified as normal motility, and to evaluate the clinical impact of the newly introduced CC v4.0. We performed a retrospective case-control study. We included all individuals who underwent a high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2020 and 2021 at two centers. Consecutive studies reported as IEM according to the CC v3.0 were reanalyzed according to the CC v4.0. We compared demographics, clinical, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters. Out of 452 manometry studies, 154 (34%) met criteria for IEM as per the CC v3.0 (CC v3.0 IEM group). Of those, 39 (25%) studies were reclassified as normal studies according to the CC v4.0 (CC v4.0 normal group), while the remaining 115 studies (25% of the overall cohort) retained an IEM diagnosis (CC v4.0 IEM group). The CC v4.0 normal group had more recovered contractions during solid swallows (p = 0.01), less ineffective swallows (p = 0.04), and lower acid exposure time (p = 0.02) compared to the CC4.0 IEM group. Under CC v4.0 criteria, fewer patients are diagnosed with IEM. Those diagnosed with IEM had worse esophageal function and higher acid burden. Though further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results indicate that CC v4.0 criteria restrict the IEM diagnosis to a more clinically meaningful population.

Clinical characteristics of absent contractility and ineffective esophageal motility: a multicenter study in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Absent contractility (AC) and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) are esophageal hypomotility disorders diagnosed using high-resolution manometry (HRM). Patient characteristics and disease course of these conditions and differential diagnosis between AC and achalasia are yet to be elucidated.

METHODS

A multicenter study involving 10 high-volume hospitals was conducted. Starlet HRM findings were compared between AC and achalasia. Patient characteristics including underlying disorders and disease courses were analyzed in AC and IEM.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients with AC and 92 with IEM were diagnosed, while achalasia was diagnosed in 1784 patients using the Chicago classification v3.0 (CCv3.0). The cut-off integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) value at 15.7 mmHg showed maximum sensitivity (0.80) and specificity (0.87) for differential diagnosis of AC from type I achalasia. While most ACs were based on systemic disorders such as scleroderma (34%) and neuromuscular diseases (8%), 23% were sporadic cases. The symptom severity of AC was not higher than that of IEM. Regarding the diagnosis of IEM, the more stringent CCv4.0 excluded 14.1% of IEM patients than the CCv3.0, although patient characteristics did not change. In patients with the hypomotile esophagus, concomitance of reflux esophagitis was associated with low distal contractile integral and IRP values. AC and IEM transferred between each other, paralleling with the underlying disease course, although no transition to achalasia was observed.

CONCLUSION

A successful determination of the optimal cut-off IRP value was achieved using the starlet HRM system to differentiate AC and achalasia. Follow-up HRM is also useful for differentiating AC from achalasia. Symptom severity may depend on underlying diseases instead of hypomotility severity.

Prospective validation of reflux monitoring by impedance-pH in predicting PPI response in typical GERD

BACKGROUND

The Lyon Consensus proposed a hierarchical approach to GERD diagnosis based on conventional and new impedance-pH metrics, namely acid exposure time (AET), number of reflux episodes, post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index, and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI).

AIMS

To define the value of conventional and new impedance-pH parameters as predictors of response to label-dose PPI in typical GERD.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients with typical esophageal symptoms were prospectively studied with impedance-pH monitoring and treated with 8-week label-dose PPI. At the end of the PPI course, symptoms response was assessed.

RESULTS

Among 255 patients who entered the study, 168 (65.9%) reported symptom remission. At ROC analysis, both MNBI and PSPW index were significantly associated to PPI responsiveness with AUC of 0.783 and 0.801, respectively. Cut-off values of 1747Ω for MNBI and 50% for PSPW index were identified as discriminators between response and non-response to label-dose PPI. At multivariate analysis, MNBI, PSPW index, and AET >6% were efficient predictors of PPI responses (OR 3, 5.4 and 2.3, respectively). Number of reflux episodes did not predict PPI response.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel MII-pH variables together with pathological are highly predictive of response of the typical GERD syndrome to label-dose PPI.

Esophageal chemical clearance and mucosa integrity values in refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with different esophageal dynamics

OBJECTIVES

Esophageal post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index (PSPWI) and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), novel impedance-based markers of reflux burden, are associated with esophageal dynamics. We aim to investigate the characteristics of PSPWI and MNBI in Chinese refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (RGERD) patients with different esophageal dynamic changes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

201 RGERD and 76 functional heartburn patients, undergone off-PPI endoscopy, esophageal manometry and impedance-pH monitoring, were included. Comparisons of conventional and novel impedance-pH metrics were made among different esophageal dynamics groups. Receiver operating-characteristic analyses were utilized to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of PSPWI and MNBI in differentiating abnormal esophageal dynamics. Correlations were used to investigate their associated factors.

RESULTS

PSPWI and MNBI of RGERD with esophagogastric junction (EGJ) injury and esophageal dysmotility were lower than EGJ injury alone or normal dynamics (p < 0.05 for both comparisons). PSPWI with esophageal peristalsis abnormality was lower than EGJ injury (p = 0.049), while MNBI showed no statistical difference. PSPWI, MNBI and their combination have auxiliary diagnostic values for esophageal peristalsis [area under the curves (AUCs): 0.683, 0.656, 0.708)] while only their combination for EGJ injury (AUC: 0.610). And they positively correlated with esophageal motility while negatively correlated with ineffective swallows and acid reflux events.

CONCLUSIONS

PSPWI and MNBI, indicating impairment of esophageal chemical clearance and mucosa integrity, were lower in RGERD patients with multiple esophageal dynamic injuries than single injuries or normal dynamics. Moreover, they provided useful contributing information for potential dynamic injuries if manometry has already been found normal or marginal.

Comparing Patients Diagnosed With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by the Chicago Classification Version 3.0 and Version 4.0 Criteria

Background

The Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is more stringent than the Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) definition. We aimed to compare the clinical and manometric features of patients meeting CCv4.0 IEM criteria (group 1) versus patients meeting CCv3.0 IEM but not CCv4.0 criteria (group 2).

Methods

We collected retrospective clinical, manometric, endoscopic, and radiographic data on 174 adults diagnosed with IEM from 2011 to 2019. Complete bolus clearance was defined as evidence of exit of the bolus by impedance measurement at all distal recording sites. Barium studies included barium swallow, modified barium swallow, and barium upper gastrointestinal series studies, and collected data from these reports include abnormal motility and delay in the passage of liquid barium or barium tablet. These data along with other clinical and manometric data were analyzed using comparison and correlation tests. All records were reviewed for repeated studies and the stability of the manometric diagnoses.

Results

Most demographic and clinical variables were not different between the groups. A lower mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was correlated with greater percent of ineffective swallows in group 1 (n = 128) (r = -0.2495, P = 0.0050) and not in group 2. In group 1, increased percent of failed contractions on manometry was associated with increased incomplete bolus clearance (r = 0.3689, P = 0.0001). No such association was observed in group 2. A lower median integrated relaxation pressure was correlated with greater percent of ineffective contractions in group 1 (r = -0.1825, P = 0.0407) and not group 2. Symptom of dysphagia was more prevalent (51.6% versus 69.6%, P = 0.0347) in group 2. Dysphagia was not associated with intrabolus pressure, bolus clearance, barium delay, or weak or failed contractions in either group. In the small number of subjects with repeated studies, a CCv4.0 diagnosis appeared more stable over time.

Conclusions

CCv4.0 IEM was associated with worse esophageal function indicated by reduced bolus clearance. Most other features studied did not differ. Symptom presentation cannot predict if patients are likely to have IEM by CCv4.0. Dysphagia was not associated with worse motility, suggesting it may not be primarily dependent on bolus transit.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Compared to Chicago Classification Version 3.0

Background/Aims

Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) of esophageal motility disorders developed a more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) than version 3.0. We studied the implications of the new diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of IEM, and clinically characterized and compared the population of patients who no longer meet diagnostic criteria for IEM to those who retain the diagnosis.

Methods

We included all consecutively performed high-resolution esophageal impedance manometries from 2014 to 2021. Three cohorts of patients with IEM were created: Patients with IEM by Chicago classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0; CC3 group), by CCv4.0 only (CC4 group), and by CCv3.0 who are now considered normal (Normal group). Demographics, manometric and reflux parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 594 manometries were analyzed. Of those, 66 (11.1%) met criteria for IEM by CCv3.0 (CC3), 41 (62.0%) retained an IEM diagnosis using CCv4.0 criteria (CC4), while 25 (38.0%) patients no longer met criteria for IEM (Normal). The CC4 group had higher esophageal acid exposure, especially supine (% time - 18.9% vs 2.2%; P = 0.005), less adequate peristaltic reserve (22.0% vs 88.0%; P = 0.003), and higher Demeester score (49.0 vs 21.2; P = 0.017) compared to the Normal group. There was no difference in bolus clearance between the groups.

Conclusions

IEM under CCv4.0 has a stronger association with pathologic reflux, especially supine reflux, and inadequate peristaltic reserve, but impairment in bolus clearance is unchanged when compared with IEM diagnosed based on CCv3.0. Further studies are required to determine the implications of these findings on management strategies.

From Chicago classification v3.0 to v4.0: Diagnostic changes and clinical implications

BACKGROUND

The Chicago Classification (CC) used to define esophageal motility disorders in high-resolution manometry (HRM) has evolved over time. Our aim was to compare the frequency of motility disorders diagnosed with the last two versions (CCv3.0 and CCv4.0) and to evaluate symptoms severity according to the diagnoses.

METHODS

From June to December 2020, patients who underwent esophageal HRM with swallows in supine and sitting positions were included. HRM studies were retrospectively analyzed using CCv3.0 and CCv4.0. Symptoms severity and quality of life were assessed with validated standardized questionnaires.

KEY RESULTS

Among the 130 patients included (73 women, mean age 52 years), motility disorder diagnoses remained unchanged in 102 patients (78%) with both CC. The 3 patients with esophago-gastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) with CCv3.0 were EGJOO, ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and normal with CCv4.0. Twenty-four out of 63 IEM diagnosed with the CCv3.0 (38%) turned into normal motility with the CCv4.0. Whatever the CC used, brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire score was significantly higher in patients with EGJ relaxation disorders compared to those with IEM (25 (0-34) vs 0 (0-19), p = 0.01). Gastro-Esophageal Reflux disease questionnaire (GERD-Q) score was higher in patients with IEM with both CC compared to those who turned to normal with CCv4.0.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

While motility disorders diagnoses remained mainly unchanged with both CC, IEM was less frequent with CCv4.0 compared to CCv3.0. The higher GERD-Q score in IEM patients with CCv4.0 suggests that CCv4.0 might identify IEM more likely associated with GERD.

Phenotyping patients with borderline elevated esophageal acid exposure

Acid exposure time (AET) <4% on ambulatory reflux monitoring definitively rules out pathologic gastroesophageal acid reflux, while AET >6% indicates pathologic reflux per the Lyon Consensus, leaving AET of 4-6% as borderline. We aimed to elucidate the borderline AET population and identify metrics that could help differentiate this group. A total of 50 subjects in each group, AET <4, 4-6, and >6% on pH-impedance monitoring between 2015 and 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. In addition to demographic and clinical information, the extracted data included mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) on reflux study and high-resolution manometry (HRM) parameters and diagnosis. After excluding patients with prior foregut surgery, major esophageal motility disorder, or unreliable impedance testing, a total of 89 subjects were included in the analysis (25 with normal AET < 4%, 38 with borderline 4-6%, 26 with abnormal >6%). MNBI in borderline AET patients was significantly lower compared to normal AET (1607.7 vs. 2524.0 ohms, P < 0.01), and higher than abnormal AET (951.5 ohms, P < 0.01). Borderline subjects had a greater frequency of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) diagnosis per Chicago classification v3.0 (42.1 vs. 8.0%, P = 0.01), but did not demonstrate any differences compared to abnormal subjects (34.6%, P = 0.56). Patients with borderline AET had an average MNBI that was in between normal AET and abnormal AET. Borderline AET patients also commonly demonstrate IEM on HRM, similar to those with abnormal AET. Our findings can be potentially useful in assigning higher clinical significance for patients found to have borderline AET with concomitant low MNBI and IEM on manometry.

[Chicago Classification ver. 4.0: Diagnosis of Peristaltic Disorder]

The Chicago Classification is being revised continuously for the accurate diagnosis of esophageal peristaltic disorders in which the etiology is unclear, and the disease behavior is heterogeneous. The ver. 4.0 was recently updated. A representative change in the diagnosis of esophageal peristaltic disorders of the ver. 4.0 showed that the distinction between major and minor disorders was eliminated and was divided into the following four diagnoses: absent contractility, distal esophageal spasm (DES), hypercontractile esophagus (HE), and ineffective esophageal motility. Compared to the ver. 3.0, it recommended a more detailed protocol of high-resolution esophageal manometry and methods of interpreting manometric. In addition, it emphasized the clinically relevant symptoms in diagnosing DES and HE, and presented provocative tests (e.g., multiple rapid swallow and rapid drinking challenge), as well as additional testing, including impedance, timed barium esophagogram and functional lumen imaging probe, which may provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for peristaltic patterns and to minimize the ambiguity in diagnosis. Although it will take time and effort to apply this revised Chicago Classification in clinical practice, it may help diagnose and manage patients with esophageal peristalsis disorder in the future.

Novel Advances in the Evaluation and Treatment of Children With Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease has long been implicated as a cause for multiple pediatric symptoms ranging from abdominal pain and regurgitation to cough and dental erosions. Diagnostic testing has evolved greatly over the last 20 years; initial testing with pH-metry to measure esophageal acid reflux burden has evolved into measurement of both acid and non-acid reflux and liquid and gas reflux. However, measuring reflux burden alone only tells a small part of the GERD story and many symptoms originally thought to be reflux related are, in fact, related to other disorder which mimic reflux. The current paradigm which involves empiric treatment of symptoms with acid suppression has been replaced with early testing for not only gastroesophageal reflux but also for other diagnostic masqueraders. The focus for interventions has shifted away from acid suppression toward motility interventions and includes a greater recognition of both functional and motility disorders which present with reflux symptoms.

Ineffective esophageal motility in Chicago Classification version 4.0 better predicts abnormal acid exposure

BACKGROUND

The updated Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) establishes a more stringent criteria to diagnose ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). This study aims to investigate the clinical significance of IEM in CCv4.0 in the context of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among suspected GERD patients who had heartburn and/or regurgitation as their chief complaints and completed esophageal function tests in our center from 2017 to 2019. Patients were further grouped as "CCv3.0 IEM" and normal motility according to Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and as "CCv4.0 IEM" and normal motility according to CCv4.0. The clinical characteristics, high-resolution manometry, esophageal reflux monitoring, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) efficacy were compared between different groups. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify esophageal motility parameters associated with reflux burden and symptom outcome.

RESULTS

Of 172 subjects included, 93 patients were identified as CCv3.0 IEM, 69 as CCv4.0 IEM. IEM in either version was concomitant with elevated acid burden and impaired esophageal clearance as compared to normal motility in corresponding diagnostic criteria, while the only presence of IEM in CCv4.0 was predictive to abnormal acid exposure (AET > 6%: OR = 2.66, 95% CI [1.27-5.56], p < 0.01). The presence of "CCv3.0 IEM" and low EGJ-CI (EGJ-CI < 39.1 mmHg·cm) had no added value in predicting increased reflux burden. No interaction effect was found between the presence of IEM and a weakened EGJ. None of the manometric variables was capable of predicting PPI response.

CONCLUSIONS

Stringent criteria of IEM in CCv4.0 can better predict abnormal acid exposure as compared to CCv3.0.

Making Sense of Nonachalasia Esophageal Motor Disorders

Achalasia is the prototypical obstructive motor disorder diagnosed using HRM, but non-achalasia motor disorders are often identified in symptomatic patients. The clinical relevance of these disorders are assessed using ancillary HRM maneuvers (multiple rapid swallows, rapid drink challenge, solid swallows) that augment the standard supine HRM evaluation by challenging peristaltic function. Finding obstructive motor physiology in non-achalasia motor disorders may raise the option of invasive management akin to achalasia. Certain non-achalasia disorders, particularly hypermotility disorders, may manifest as epiphenomena seen with esophageal hypersensitivity. Symptomatic management is offered for superimposed reflux disease, psychological disorders, functional esophageal disorders, and behavioral disorders.

Novel impedance-pH parameters are associated with proton pump inhibitor response in patients with inconclusive diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease according to Lyon Consensus

BACKGROUND

The Lyon Consensus delineates impedance-pH parameters that can demonstrate/exclude gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In patients with acid exposure time between 4% and 6%, GERD diagnosis has been considered inconclusive. In these cases, mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) and post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index may either confirm or refute GERD diagnosis and represent predictors of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) response.

AIMS

To investigate the diagnostic yield of MNBI and PSPW index and their relationship with PPI response in patients with inconclusive GERD diagnosis.

METHODS

Review of impedance-pH tracings from PPI responder/non-responder patients with typical reflux symptoms. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the association of MNBI and PSPW index to PPI response.

RESULTS

Among 233 patients evaluated, 145/233 (62.2%) were PPI responders; 62 had conclusive and 65 inconclusive evidence of GERD, 46 had reflux hypersensitivity, and 60 functional heartburn. Abnormal MNBI and PSPW index were significantly more frequent in inconclusive GERD as compared to the functional heartburn group (P < 0.001). Within the inconclusive GERD group, 35/65 (54%) patients were PPI responders and displayed a significantly higher proportion of cases with pathological MNBI or PSPW index as compared to non-responders (32/35 [91.4%] and 30/35 [85.7%] vs 9/30 [30%] and 7/30 [23.3%], P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, pathological PSPW index and/or MNBI values were significantly associated with PPI response in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study highlights the value of MNBI and PSPW index as adjunctive metrics in characterising patients with inconclusive evidence of GERD and identifying those responsive to PPI treatment.

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.

Patients With Definite and Inconclusive Evidence of Reflux According to Lyon Consensus Display Similar Motility and Esophagogastric Junction Characteristics

Background/Aims

The role of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) within Lyon consensus phenotypes, especially patients with inconclusive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) evidence, has not been fully investigated. In this multicenter, observational study we aim to compare HRM parameters in patients with GERD stratified according to the Lyon consensus.

Methods

Clinical and endoscopic data, HRM and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) studies performed off proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with esophageal GERD symptoms were reviewed. Lyon consensus criteria identified pathological GERD, reflux hypersensitivity, functional heartburn, and inconclusive GERD. Patients, with inconclusive GERD were further subdivided into 2 groups based on total reflux numbers (≤ 80 or > 80 reflux episodes) during the MII-pH recording time.

Results

A total of 264 patients formed the study cohort. Pathological GERD and inconclusive GERD patients were associated with higher numbers of reflux episodes, lower mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) values, and a higher proportion of patients with pathologic MNBI compared to functional heartburn (P < 0.05 for each comparison). On multivariate analysis, pathological GERD and inconclusive GERD patients, both with ≤ 80 or > 80 reflux episodes, were significantly associated with pathologic esophagogastric junction contractile integral values and with presence of hiatus hernia (type 2/3 esophagogastric junction). Patients with inconclusive GERD and > 80 reflux episodes were significantly associated with fragmented peristalsis and ineffective esophageal motility whilst inconclusive GERD with ≤ 80 reflux episodes were significantly associated with fragmented peristalsis.

Conclusion

Esophageal motor parameters on HRM are similar between pathologic and inconclusive GERD according to the Lyon consensus.

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.