A Delphi Method for Development of a Barrett's Esophagus Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Optimal Patient-physician Communication.

BACKGROUND METHODS: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as "essential" or "important" were included in Barrett's esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). RESULTS: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. CONCLUSIONS: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Esophageal Lichen Planus: A Descriptive Multicenter Report.

GOALS: To better understand the characteristics, treatment approaches, and outcomes of patients with esophageal lichen planus (ELP). BACKGROUND: ELP is a rare, often unrecognized and misdiagnosed disorder. Data on this unique patient population are currently limited to small, single-center series. STUDY: A multicenter, retrospective descriptive study was conducted of adults diagnosed with ELP over a 5-year period, between January 1, 2015, and October 10, 2020, from 7 centers across the United States. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients (average age 65 y, 86% female, 90% Caucasian) were included. Over half had at least 1 extraesophageal manifestation. Esophageal strictures (54%) and abnormal mucosa (50%) were frequent endoscopic findings, with the proximal esophagus the most common site of stricture. Approximately 20% had normal endoscopic findings. Topical steroids (64%) and/or proton pump inhibitors (74%) dominated management; endoscopic response favored steroids (43% vs. 29% respectively). Almost half of the patients required switching treatment modalities during the study period. Adjunctive therapies varied significantly between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Given its at times subtle clinical and endoscopic signs, a high index of suspicion and biopsy will improve ELP diagnosis, especially in those with extraesophageal manifestations. Effective therapies are lacking and vary significantly. Prospective investigations into optimal treatment regimens are necessary.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite best practice recommendations for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), variation in care exists. METHODS: We used established methodology for quality indicator development to identify metrics to define quality for the treatment of EoE. RESULTS: Among 29 proposed quality indicator statements, 9 (31%) were adopted as highly valid across all categories. Two (22%) of these statements were identified as having existing or suspected quality gaps. DISCUSSION: We identified highly valid EoE quality indicators for adult gastroenterologists, which can be used for quality improvement with resulting benefits for patient outcomes.

Achalasia Quality Indicator Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) are formal ways to track health care performance and outcomes, guide quality improvement, and identify gaps in care delivery. We developed twelve quality indicators for achalasia management which cover the domains of patient education, diagnosis, and treatment of achalasia. AIM: To determine adherence to established quality indicators for achalasia management. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter evaluation of care patterns for adult patients greater than 18 years old with newly diagnosed achalasia from January 2018 to May 2020. A balanced random patient sample was obtained at four large academic medical centers. Independent electronic health record chart abstraction was performed using a standardized form to determine adherence to applicable QIs. Pooled and de-identified data were analyzed to identify gaps in care. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included and the overall adherence to applicable quality indicators across all centers was 86%. The median follow-up for all patients from time of diagnosis to end of study was 511 days. Clinicians adhered to all applicable quality indicators in 49 patients (39%). The quality indicator domain with the poorest adherence was patient education (67%), with 50% of patients having had a documented discussion of the risks of gastroesophageal reflux disease following surgical or endoscopic myotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in the quality of achalasia care delivery were identified, the largest of which relates to patient education about treatment risks. These findings highlight a potential area for future quality improvement studies and form the basis for developing fully specified quality measures.

Patient Reported Outcomes and Objective Swallowing Assessments in a Multidisciplinary Dysphagia Clinic.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Dysphagia encompasses a complex compilation of symptoms which often differ from findings of objective swallowing evaluations. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the results of subjective dysphagia measures to objective measures of swallowing in patients evaluated in a multidisciplinary dysphagia clinic. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: The study cohort included all patients evaluated in the multidisciplinary dysphagia clinic over 24 months. Participants were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team including a laryngologist, gastroenterologist, and speech-language pathologist. Evaluation included a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS), fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE). Data collected included diet (FOIS), Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) score, Reflux symptom index (RSI) score, and the findings of the VFSS exam. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in the analysis. The average EAT-10 score was 16.3 ± 2.1, RSI was 21.4 ± 0.6, and FOIS score was 6.0 ± 1.33. VFSS revealed impairments in the oral phase in 40% of the cohort, pharyngeal in 59%, and esophageal in 49%. Abnormalities were noted in one phase for 32%, in 2 phases in 32%, and three phases in 18%. Patients with abnormal pharyngeal findings on VFSS had significantly higher EAT-10 scores (P = .04). Patients with abnormal oral findings on VFSS were noted to have significantly lower FOIS scores (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Data presented here demonstrate a relationship between patient reported symptoms and objective VFSS findings in a cohort of patients referred for multidisciplinary swallowing assessment suggesting such surveys are helpful screening tools but inadequate to fully characterize swallowing impairment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1088-1094, 2021.

Reflux Hypersensitivity: How to Approach Diagnosis and Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper aims to review the definition and diagnostic criteria for reflux hypersensitivity and comment on the present and future management of this condition. RECENT FINDINGS: In 2016, the Rome IV criteria redefined reflux hypersensitivity as characterized by typical reflux symptoms, absence of endoscopic mucosal disease, absence of pathologic gastroesophageal reflux, and positive symptom correlation between reflux and heartburn episodes. Though uncertain, TPRV1 receptors have been implicated in the pathophysiology of reflux hypersensitivity. Recent studies have shown neuromodulators like SSRIs, SNRIs, and TCAs may be the future of managing this condition. With the release of the Rome IV criteria and availability of continuous pH monitoring, the diagnosis of reflux hypersensitivity has become more streamlined. Though there is no definitive therapy for reflux hypersensitivity, several anti-secretory agents and neuromodulators have shown some efficacy in therapeutic trials. The lack of large-scale, randomized controlled trials, however, reinforces the need for further research into the pharmacotherapy of reflux hypersensitivity.

Mucosal impedance for esophageal disease: evaluating the evidence.

Impedance has traditionally been employed in esophageal disease as a means to assess bolus flow and reflux episodes. Recent and ongoing research has provided new and novel applications for this technology. Measurement of esophageal mucosal impedance, via either multichannel intraluminal impedance catheters or specially designed endoscopically deployed impedance catheters, provides a marker of mucosal integrity. Mucosal impedance has been shown to segregate gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis from non-GERD controls and may play a role in predicting response to reflux intervention. More data are needed with regard to other esophageal subgroups, outcome studies, and functional disease. Our paper reviews the history of impedance in esophageal disease, the means of assessing baseline and mucosal impedance, data with regard to the newly developed mucosal impedance probes, the clinical utility of mucosal impedance in specific clinical conditions, and limitations in our existing knowledge, along with suggestions for future studies.