RESUMEN
Achalasia is a disorder of impaired lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation and failed peristalsis traditionally characterized by manometry.1 As impaired LES relaxation is a mechanism of reduced esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening, abnormally reduced EGJ distensibility assessed with functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) was reported among patients with untreated achalasia.2-5 Therefore, we aimed to describe the performance characteristics of EGJ opening parameters on FLIP panometry among a large cohort of treatment-naïve achalasia patients.
Asunto(s)
Acalasia del Esófago , Acalasia del Esófago/diagnóstico por imagen , Esfínter Esofágico Inferior , Unión Esofagogástrica/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Manometría , PeristaltismoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Achalasia subtypes on high-resolution manometry (HRM) prognosticate treatment response and help direct management plan. We aimed to utilize parameters of distension-induced contractility and pressurization on functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry and machine learning to predict HRM achalasia subtypes. METHODS: One hundred eighty adult patients with treatment-naïve achalasia defined by HRM per Chicago Classification (40 type I, 99 type II, 41 type III achalasia) who underwent FLIP panometry were included: 140 patients were used as the training cohort and 40 patients as the test cohort. FLIP panometry studies performed with 16-cm FLIP assemblies were retrospectively analyzed to assess distensive pressure and distension-induced esophageal contractility. Correlation analysis, single tree, and random forest were adopted to develop classification trees to identify achalasia subtypes. KEY RESULTS: Intra-balloon pressure at 60 mL fill volume, and proportions of patients with absent contractile response, repetitive retrograde contractile pattern, occluding contractions, sustained occluding contractions (SOC), contraction-associated pressure changes >10 mm Hg all differed between HRM achalasia subtypes and were used to build the decision tree-based classification model. The model identified spastic (type III) vs non-spastic (types I and II) achalasia with 90% and 78% accuracy in the train and test cohorts, respectively. Achalasia subtypes I, II, and III were identified with 71% and 55% accuracy in the train and test cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Using a supervised machine learning process, a preliminary model was developed that distinguished type III achalasia from non-spastic achalasia with FLIP panometry. Further refinement of the measurements and more experience (data) may improve its ability for clinically relevant application.