Endoscopic approach to eosinophilic esophagitis: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Consensus Conference.

Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.

Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: One of the most used treatments for achalasia is pneumatic dilation of the lower esophageal sphincter to improve esophageal emptying. Multiple treatment protocols have been described with a varying balloon size, number of dilations, inflation pressure, and duration. We aimed to identify the most efficient and safe treatment protocol. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on pneumatic dilation in patients with primary achalasia. Clinical remission was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3 or adequate symptom reduction measured with a similar validated questionnaire. We compared the clinical remission rates and occurrence of complications between different treatment protocols. RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 643 patients. After 6 months, dilation with a 30-mm or 35-mm balloon gave comparable mean success rates (81% and 79%, respectively), whereas a series of dilations up to 40 mm had a higher success rate of 90%. Elective additional dilation in patients with insufficient symptom resolution was somewhat more effective than performing a predefined series of dilations: 86% versus 75% after 12 months. Perforations occurred most often during initial dilations, and significantly more often using a 35-mm balloon than a 30-mm balloon (3.2 vs 1.0%); P = 0.027. A subsequent 35-mm dilation was safer than an initial dilation with 35 mm (0.97% vs 9.3% perforations), P = 0.0017. CONCLUSIONS: The most efficient and safe method of dilating achalasia patients is a graded approach starting with a 30-mm dilation, followed by an elective 35-mm dilation and 40 mm when there is insufficient symptom relief.

Detecting the effects of a standardized meal challenge on small bowel motility with MRI in prepared and unprepared bowel.

OBJECTIVE: MRI is increasingly used to evaluate small bowel contractility. The objective of this study was to validate a clinically practical stimulation test (300-kcal meal) for small bowel motility. METHODS: Thirty-one healthy subjects underwent dynamic MRI to capture global small bowel motility after ±10h fasting, of which 15 underwent bowel preparation consisting of 1 L 2.5% mannitol solution and 16 did not. Each subject underwent (1) a baseline motility scan (2) a food challenge (3) a post-challenge scan, and (4) second post-challenge scan (after ±20 minutes). This protocol was repeated within 2 weeks. Motility was quantified using a validated motility assessment technique. KEY RESULTS: Motility in prepared subjects at baseline was significantly higher than motility in unprepared subjects (0.36 AU vs 0.18 AU, P < 0.001). In the prepared group, the food challenge produced an 8% increase in motility (P = 0.33) while in the unprepared subjects a significant increase of 30% was observed (P < 0.001). Responses to food remained insignificant (P = 0.21) and significant (P = 0.003), for the prepared and unprepared subjects, respectively, ±20 minutes post food challenge. These results were confirmed in the repeated scan session. CONCLUSION & INFERENCES: A significant response to a 300-kcal meal was measured within 10 minutes in unprepared bowel, supporting the clinical use of this challenge to provoke and assess motility changes. A caloric challenge did not produce an observable increase in motility in mannitol prepared subjects.

Diagnosis of Esophageal Motility Disorders: Esophageal Pressure Topography vs. Conventional Line Tracing.

OBJECTIVES: Enhanced characterization of esophageal peristaltic and sphincter function provided by esophageal pressure topography (EPT) offers a potential diagnostic advantage over conventional line tracings (CLT). However, high-resolution manometry (HRM) and EPT require increased equipment costs over conventional systems and evidence demonstrating a significant diagnostic advantage of EPT over CLT is limited. Our aim was to investigate whether the inter-rater agreement and/or accuracy of esophageal motility diagnosis differed between EPT and CLT. METHODS: Forty previously completed patient HRM studies were selected for analysis using a customized software program developed to perform blinded independent interpretation in either EPT or CLT (six pressure sensors) format. Six experienced gastroenterologists with a clinical focus in esophageal disease (attendings) and six gastroenterology trainees with minimal manometry experience (fellows) from three academic centers interpreted each of the 40 studies using both EPT and CLT formats. Rater diagnoses were assessed for inter-rater agreement and diagnostic accuracy, both for exact diagnosis and for correct identification of a major esophageal motility disorder. RESULTS: The total group agreement was moderate (κ=0.57; 95% CI: 0.56-0.59) for EPT and fair (κ=0.32; 0.30-0.33) for CLT. Inter-rater agreement between attendings was good (κ=0.68; 0.65-0.71) for EPT and moderate (κ=0.46; 0.43-0.50) for CLT. Inter-rater agreement between fellows was moderate (κ=0.48; 0.45-0.50) for EPT and poor to fair (κ=0.20; 0.17-0.24) for CLT. Among all raters, the odds of an incorrect exact esophageal motility diagnosis were 3.3 times higher with CLT assessment than with EPT (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 2.4-4.5; P<0.0001), and the odds of incorrect identification of a major motility disorder were 3.4 times higher with CLT than with EPT (OR: 3.4; 2.4-5.0; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Superior inter-rater agreement and diagnostic accuracy of esophageal motility diagnoses were demonstrated with analysis using EPT over CLT among our selected raters. On the basis of these findings, EPT may be the preferred assessment modality of esophageal motility.

Diagnostic yield of oesophageal pH monitoring in patients with chronic unexplained cough.

OBJECTIVE: One of the main causes of persistent cough is gastro-oesophageal reflux. In these patients, excessive oesophageal acid exposure and/or a temporal association between gastro-oesophageal reflux and cough can be demonstrated during 24-h pH monitoring. Impedance pH monitoring may have a higher yield than pH monitoring alone, but this technique is not yet widely available. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of ambulatory 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring for the evaluation of chronic unexplained cough. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring studies were analysed in 55 patients with chronic cough. In 14 of these studies concurrent ambulatory pressure monitoring was done. A cough episode was considered to be related to reflux if the cough occurred within two minutes after the onset of the reflux episode ("reflux-cough sequence"). Temporal relationships between cough and reflux were expressed by using the symptom association probability (SAP). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients actually coughed during the 24-h study. Eleven patients (20%) had a positive SAP for the reflux-cough sequence. In 5 patients, reflux followed coughing. Pathological oesophageal acid exposure was found in 15 subjects. Interestingly, only a minority (39.2%) of the cough bursts detected manometrically were marked by patients who had undergone both combined 24-h pH and pressure recording. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, in a routine clinical setting, combined 24-h pH and pressure monitoring is useful in the evaluation of patients with chronic unexplained cough, as positive findings are not infrequently found and have diagnostic and therapeutic consequences.