The semirecumbent position for high-resolution esophageal manometry. Results of a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: Normative values for high-resolution manometry (HRM) have been obtained with the patient lying supine. The aim of the study was to compare supine, semirecumbent and sitting positions during HRM in terms of variation in normative metrics, diagnostic yield, and patient's comfort. METHODS: A prospective, single-center feasibility study was planned in consecutive patients referred to the esophageal function laboratory. In each of the three positions, 10 consecutive 5 ml water swallows and three 10 ml multiple rapid swallows were administered. Validated reflux questionnaires were administered prior to the test, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) assessing the patient's comfort after the test. RESULTS: Twenty patients presenting with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms completed the study protocol. The intra-abdominal segment of the lower esophageal sphincter was significantly longer in the sitting position (P = 0.013), and the multiple rapid swallow distal contractile integral was lowest in the supine position (P = 0.012). The VAS comfort score did not significantly differ in the three body positions (P = 0.295). The concordance in the final diagnosis was 80% for semirecumbent vs. sitting (kappa = 0.15; P = 0.001), 70% for supine vs. sitting and 65.0% for semirecumbent vs. supine. CONCLUSION: Compared to the supine position, both the semirecumbent and sitting position seems to provide similar advantages. HRM metrics and the final manometric diagnosis may be affected by body position, but complementary maneuvers, such are the rapid drink challenge, can resolve diagnostic discrepancies and improve the overall accuracy of the test.

Effect of Body Position on High-resolution Esophageal Manometry Variables and Final Manometric Diagnosis.

Background/Aims: According to the Chicago classification version 3.0, high-resolution manometry (HRM) should be performed in the supine position. However, with the patient in the upright/sitting position, the test could more closely simulate real-life behavior and may be better tolerated. We performed a systematic review of the literature to search whether the manometric variables and the final diagnosis are affected by positional changes. Methods: A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English that compared HRM results in different body positions were included. Moreover, the change in diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders according to the shift of body position was investigated. Results: Seventeen studies including 1714 patients and healthy volunteers met the inclusion criteria. Six studies showed a significant increase in lower esophageal sphincter basal pressure in the supine position. Integrated relaxation pressure was significantly higher in the supine position in 10 of 13 studies. Distal contractile index was higher in the supine position in 9 out of 10 studies. One hundred and fifty-one patients (16.4%) out of 922 with normal HRM in the supine position were diagnosed with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) when the test was performed in the upright position (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Performing HRM in the upright position affects some variables and may change the final manometric diagnosis. Further studies to determine the normal values in the sitting position are needed.