Artificial Intelligence Tools for Improving Manometric Diagnosis of Esophageal Dysmotility.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a broad term that pertains to a computer's ability to mimic and sometimes surpass human intelligence in interpretation of large datasets. The adoption of AI in gastrointestinal motility has been slower compared to other areas such as polyp detection and interpretation of histopathology. RECENT FINDINGS: Within esophageal physiologic testing, AI can automate interpretation of image-based tests, especially high resolution manometry (HRM) and functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) studies. Basic tasks such as identification of landmarks, determining adequacy of the HRM study and identification from achalasia from non-achalasia patterns are achieved with good accuracy. However, existing AI systems compare AI interpretation to expert analysis rather than to clinical outcome from management based on AI diagnosis. The use of AI methods is much less advanced within the field of ambulatory reflux monitoring, where challenges exist in assimilation of data from multiple impedance and pH channels. There remains potential for replication of the AI successes within esophageal physiologic testing to HRM of the anorectum, and to innovative and novel methods of evaluating gastric electrical activity and motor function. The use of AI has tremendous potential to improve detection of dysmotility within the esophagus using esophageal physiologic testing, as well as in other regions of the gastrointestinal tract. Eventually, integration of patient presentation, demographics and alternate test results to individual motility test interpretation will improve diagnostic precision and prognostication using AI tools.

Fifteen-year symptomatic outcome of patients with nonactionable motor findings on high-resolution manometry.

BACKGROUND: High-resolution manometry (HRM) is performed for evaluation of esophageal symptoms, but patient outcome is unclear when no actionable motor disorder is identified. We evaluated long-term symptomatic outcome of patients with nonactionable HRM findings. METHODS: Patients who underwent (HRM) studies in 2006-2008 were tracked. Patients with achalasia spectrum disorders, foregut surgery before or after HRM, and incomplete symptom documentation were excluded. Symptom questionnaires assessing dominant symptom intensity (DSI, product of symptom severity and frequency recorded on 5-point Likert scales) and global symptom severity (GSS, from 10 cm visual analog scale) were repeated. Change in symptom burden was compared against HRM motor findings using Chicago Classification 4.0 (CCv4.0), applied retroactively to 2006-2008 data. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 134 patients (median age 68 years, 64.5% female) could be contacted. The majority (73.1%) had normal motility; others had ineffective esophageal motility (8.2%), esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (13.4%), hypercontractile esophagus (3.0%), or absent contractility (2.2%), none managed invasively. Over 15 years of follow-up, DSI decreased from 8.0 (4.0-16.0) to 1.0 (0.0-6.0) (p < 0.001) and GSS improved from 5.5 (3.3-7.7) to 2.0 (0.0-4.0) (p < 0.001); improvement was consistent across CCv4.0 diagnoses and subgroups. The majority (82.8%) reported improvement over time, and antisecretory medication was the most effective intervention (83.0% improvement). There was no difference in medication efficacy (p = 0.75) or improvement in symptoms (p = 0.20) based on CCv4 diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Esophageal symptoms improve with conservative symptomatic management over long-term follow-up when no conclusive obstructive motor disorders or achalasia spectrum disorders are found on HRM.

Dysphagia associated with esophageal wall thickening in patients with nonspecific high-resolution manometry findings: Understanding motility beyond the Chicago classification version 4.0.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that 50% of patients with normal high-resolution manometry (HRM) findings or ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) may have abnormal functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) results. However, the specific HRM findings associated with abnormal FLIP results are unknown. Herein, we investigated the relationship between nonspecific manometry findings and abnormal FLIP results. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 684 patients who underwent HRM at a tertiary care center in Seoul, Korea, based on the Chicago Classification version 4.0 protocol. KEY RESULTS: Among the 684 patients, 398 had normal HRM findings or IEM. Of these 398 patients, eight showed esophageal wall thickening on endoscopic ultrasonography or computed tomography; however, no abnormalities were seen during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Among these eight patients, seven showed repetitive simultaneous contractions (RSCs) in at least one of the two positions: 61% (±29%) in 10 swallows in the supine position and 51% (±30%) in five swallows in the upright position. Four patients who underwent FLIP had a significantly decreased esophagogastric junction distensibility index (1.0 ± 0.5 m m 2 mmHg - 1 at 60 mL). Two of these patients underwent per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) due to a lack of response to medication. Esophageal muscle biopsy revealed hypertrophic muscle with marginal eosinophil infiltration. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: A subset of patients (2%) with normal HRM findings or IEM and RSCs experienced dysphagia associated with poor distensibility of the thickened esophageal wall. FLIP assessment or combined HRM and impedance protocols may help better define these patients who may respond well to POEM.

Characteristics of Esophageal Motility and Associated Symptom Profiles in Patients with Esophageal Diverticulum: A Study Based on High-Resolution Impedance Manometry.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal diverticulum (ED) is an uncommon structural disorder with heterogenous manifestations and elusive pathophysiology. Our aim was to investigate esophageal motility and associated symptom profiles in patients with ED based on high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM). METHODS: Consecutive patients with ED referred to our motility laboratory between 2015 to 2022 were identified in our electronic database. All patients were evaluated based on an upper endoscopy, HRIM, and standardized symptom questionnaires. Patients with ED were further stratified into upper, middle, and lower (epiphrenic) cases. Esophageal motility was evaluated with HRIM and the updated Chicago Classification v4.0. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with ED (9 upper, 4 middle, and 11 epiphrenic) were analyzed. Patients with ED were generally older (mean: 65 ± 13.3 years) and predominantly women (58.3%). Most ED cases were unilaterally located (95.8%) and left-side predominant (62.5%). Mean symptom duration was 20 months (range: 1-120) and the most common symptoms were dysphagia (70.8%) and regurgitation (37.5%). Erosive esophagitis was noted in 16 patients (69.6%), while barium stasis was noted in 5 patients (20.8%). Fourteen patients (58.3%) were diagnosed with esophageal motility disorders using HRIM, with achalasia being the most common diagnosis (n = 5, 20.8%). Patients with epiphrenic diverticulum had significantly higher symptom scores and achalasia prevalence. CONCLUSION: Patients with ED tended to be older and was associated with a high prevalence of EMD. A multi-disciplinary evaluation, including complete anatomical and motility surveys, may help clarify the underlying pathophysiology and tailor further treatment strategies.

Compartmentalized pressurization is a novel prognostic factor for hypercontractile esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Hypercontractile esophagus (HE) is a disorder of increased esophageal body contractile strength on high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM). Compartmentalized pressurization (CP) is a pattern with an isobaric contour of >30 mmHg extending from the contractile front to the lower esophageal sphincter on HREM. The relevance of CP to HE has yet to be explored. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 830 HREM studies of patients to identify HE. HE patients' CP status and symptoms by Eckardt score (ES) were reviewed. Diagnoses were made using Chicago Classification (CC) v4.0. KEY RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (5.6%) were identified as having HE by CCv3, 30 (3.6%) of which had HE by CCv4. 11/30 HE patients had CP, and 19/30 did not. CP was associated with chronic opioid use (36.4% vs. 5.3% p = 0.047). Presenting ES was greater for HE patients with CP (7 vs. 4). Seven HE patients with CP and 11 without CP were managed medically. ES after medical therapy was higher in HE patients with CP compared to those without CP (9 vs. 0). No HE patients with CP responded to medical therapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significance of this association over time. 83% of all HE patients had all-cause symptom remission. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: HE patients with CP are associated with a higher presenting ES. HE patients with CP do not respond to medical therapy, while HE patients without CP frequently do respond. CP in HE may have prognostic value in determination of treatment strategy for patients with HE.

Optimizing the Management Algorithm for Esophageal Dysphagia After Index Endoscopy: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines advise esophageal motility testing for dysphagia when structural disorders are ruled out, but cost concerns impede adoption. We evaluated cost-effective positioning of esophageal motility testing in the algorithm to evaluate esophageal dysphagia. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model comparing 3 strategies: (i) esophageal manometry, (ii) screening impedance planimetry followed by esophageal manometry if needed, or (iii) nonalgorithmic usual care. Diagnostic test accuracy was adapted to expected rates of esophageal motility disorders in general gastroenterology populations. We modeled routine testing for all patients with nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia compared with selective testing with strong suspicion for achalasia. Cost outcomes were defined on national commercial and Medicare datasets stratified on age and sex. Health outcomes were modeled on populations with achalasia. The time horizon was 1 year. RESULTS: Motility testing was preferred over nonalgorithmic usual care due to cost savings rather than health gains. To commercial insurers, routine esophageal manometry for nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia would be cost-saving below a reimbursed cost of $2,415. Screening impedance planimetry would be cost saving below a reimbursed cost of $1,130. The limit for reimbursed costs would be lower for patients older than 65 years to achieve cost savings mainly due to insurance. Sex did not significantly influence cost-effectiveness. Patients and insurers preferred routine screening impedance planimetry before manometry when the index of suspicion for achalasia was below 6%. DISCUSSION: Aligning with practice guidelines, routine esophageal motility testing seems cost saving to patients and insurers compared with nonalgorithmic usual care to evaluate nonstructural/mechanical dysphagia. Choice of testing should be guided by index of suspicion.

Association of esophageal motility disorder symptoms with Chicago classification versions 3.0 and 4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry: A single-center experience from Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The Chicago Classification (CC) was developed as a robust framework to enable clinicians to better understand and classify the nature of motility disorders. Previous studies have primarily focused on the CC version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and data regarding the correlation between symptoms and CC version 4.0 (CCv4.0) in the Saudi Arabian population are lacking. This study aimed to assess the correlation between symptoms and CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) in Saudi Arabia, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both classifications. METHODS: A total of 182 patients presenting with esophageal symptoms were included in this study. HRM was performed to assess esophageal motility, and patients' reported symptoms were recorded. The association between HRM findings and symptomatic variables was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: Variability was observed in the diagnostic performance of symptomatic variables for major EMDs. CCv4.0 demonstrated a higher sensitivity for dysphagia than CCv3.0; however, it exhibited lower sensitivity to atypical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) exhibited the highest specificity and PPV, whereas typical GERD symptoms showed lower specificity. CONCLUSION: CCv4.0 demonstrated potential improvements in sensitivity for dysphagia, but lower sensitivity for atypical GERD symptoms, compared with CCv3.0. These insights provide guidance for clinicians in Saudi Arabia and contribute to understanding the diagnostic performance of CCv3.0 and CCv4.0.

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.

Esophageal Motility Disorders: Diagnosis and Treatment Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) are caused by the impaired relaxation of the upper/lower esophageal sphincter and/or defective esophageal peristaltic contractions, resulting in dysphagia and noncardiac chest pain. High-resolution manometry (HRM) is essential for the diagnosis of primary EMD; however, the recognition of EMD and HRM by general practitioners in Japan is limited. This review summarizes the diagnosis of and treatment strategies for EMD. SUMMARY: HRM is a specific test for the diagnosis of EMD, whereas endoscopy and barium swallow as screening tests provide characteristic findings (i.e., esophageal rosette and bird's beak sign) in some cases. It is important to note that manometric diagnoses apart from achalasia are often clinically irrelevant; therefore, the recently updated guidelines suggest additional manometric maneuvers, such as the rapid drink challenge, and further testing, including functional lumen imaging, for a more accurate diagnosis before invasive treatment. Endoscopic/surgical myotomy, pneumatic dilation, and botulinum toxin injections need to be considered for patients with achalasia and clinically relevant esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. KEY MESSAGE: Since the detailed pathophysiology of EMD remains unclear, their diagnosis needs to be cautiously established prior to the initiation of invasive treatment.

Endoscopic impedance planimetry versus high-resolution manometry (HRM) for pre-operative motility evaluation in anti-reflux surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-operative evaluation of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) includes assessment of esophageal motility. High-resolution manometry (HRM) is the gold standard; endoscopic impedance planimetry (IP) with Endoflip 2.0 is increasingly utilized in esophageal disorders of motility. We hypothesized that normal IP motility would correlate with normal HRM motility and tested this in a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients presenting for surgical evaluation of GERD between 9/2020 and 10/2021 were prospectively enrolled under an IRB-approved protocol. Patients with prior esophageal/gastric surgery, known motility disorders, or large paraesophageal hernias were excluded. All underwent HRM and IP, with normal motility defined by Chicago 3.0 classification for HRM and the presence of repetitive antegrade contractions for IP. Logistic regression and t test were used to analyze the data; p value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 63 patients enrolled, 48 completed both IP and HRM testing. The cohort was 50% male with a median age of 52.5 [42.0, 66.0] years, mostly ASA class 1-2 (75.1%, n = 36) and had an average BMI of 31.4 ± 6.3 kg/m2. Normal motility tracings were in 62.5% of IP and 75% of HRM tests. Using HRM as the gold standard, IP detected normal motility with a sensitivity of 65.8% and a specificity of 50% (positive predictive value 83.3%, negative predictive value 27.8%). Normal IP was not statistically significant in predicting normal HRM (OR 3.182, 95% CI 0.826-12.262, p = 0.0926). Tolerability of IP was significantly better than HRM with lower rates of discomfort (10.9% vs. 93.4%, p < 0.0001) and higher willingness to repeat testing (100% vs. 47.8%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Esophageal motility testing with Endoflip 2.0 is well tolerated by patients. The low specificity (50%), poor negative predictive value (27.8%), and lack of statistically significant concordance between IP and HRM raises concern for the reliability of this test as a stand-alone replacement for HRM in the pre-operative evaluation for GERD.

Natural history of symptoms and prognostic information of the rapid drink challenge and solid bolus swallows in esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction defined by manometry.

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) is a condition characterized by poor relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), which can manifest as dysphagia and chest pain. The best treatment of EGJOO is unknown as some patients improve without any specific therapy, whereas some patients undergo invasive therapy. Currently, prognostic factors are lacking. We aimed to assess the long-term prognosis and predictors of dysphagia and chest pain by the rapid drink challenge and solid bolus swallows in EGJOO. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed high-resolution esophageal manometries (HRM) performed at our center between 2015 and 2018. The patients completed a dysphagia and chest pain questionnaire a median of 34 months after the HRM/baseline assessment, including the Impaction dysphagia questionnaire-10 (IDQ-10) complemented with questions regarding chest pain and esophageal treatments. Symptoms were compared with HRM findings. RESULTS: In all, 980 HRMs were analyzed and 66 (6.5%) were identified as having HRM findings compatible with EGJOO. Of these, 27 patients with EGJOO (41%) completed the follow-up questionnaires and had no exclusion criteria, and 70% of these patients had dysphagia and 44% chest pain at least once a week. Dysphagia at follow-up was more common in patients with elevated integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) on all three HRM metrics (water swallows, solid bolus swallows, and rapid drink challenge) (p = 0.03, odds ratio: 8.4 (95% CI: 1.2-56.0)), but this was not seen for chest pain (p = 0.45). Abnormal motility patterns on rapid drink challenge or solid bolus swallows were not associated with dysphagia or chest pain at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Having a high IRP on three HRM metrics-water swallows, solid bolus swallows, and rapid drink challenge-is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with EGJOO and could potentially be used to select candidates suitable for invasive procedures.

Malaysian joint societies' consensus recommendations on diagnosis and management of disorders of esophagogastric junction outflow.

Disorders of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow, including achalasia and EGJ outflow obstruction, are motility disorders characterized by inadequate relaxation of lower esophageal sphincter with or without impaired esophageal peristalsis. Current guidelines are technical and less practical in the Asia-Pacific region, and there are still massive challenges in timely diagnosis and managing these disorders effectively. Therefore, a Malaysian joint societies' task force has developed a consensus on disorders of EGJ outflow based on the latest evidence, while taking into consideration the practical relevance of local and regional context and resources. Twenty-one statements were established after a series of meetings and extensive review of literatures. The Delphi method was used in the consensus voting process. This consensus focuses on the definition, diagnostic investigations, the aims of treatment outcome, non-surgical or surgical treatment options, management of treatment failure or relapse, and the management of complications. This consensus advocates the use of high-resolution esophageal manometry for diagnosis of disorders of EGJ outflow. Myotomy, via either endoscopy or laparoscopy, is the preferred treatment option, while pneumatic dilatation can serve as a secondary option. Evaluation and management of complications including post-procedural reflux and cancer surveillance are recommended.

Are the Chicago 3.0 manometric diagnostics consistent with Chicago 4.0?

There is little information on the degree of concordance between the results obtained using the Chicago 3.0 (CCv3.0) and Chicago 4.0 (CCv4.0) protocols to interpret high-resolution manometry (HRM) seeking to determine the value provided by the new swallowing maneuvers included in the last protocol. This is a study of diagnostic tests, evaluating concordance by consistency between the results obtained by the CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 protocols, in patients undergoing HRM. Concordance was assessed with the kappa test. Bland-Altman scatter plots, and Lin's correlation-concordance coefficient (CCC) were used to assess the agreement between IRP measured with swallows in the supine and seated position or with solid swallows. One hundred thirty-two patients were included (65% women, age 53 ± 17 years). The most frequent HRM indication was dysphagia (46.1%). Type I was the most common type of gastroesophageal junction. The most frequent CCv4.0 diagnoses were normal esophageal motility (68.9%), achalasia (15.5%), and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM; 5.3%). The agreement between the results was substantial (Kappa 0.77 ± 0.05), with a total agreement of 87.9%. Diagnostic reclassification occurred in 12.1%, from IEM in CCv3.0 to normal esophageal motility in CCv4.0. Similarly, there was a high level of agreement between the IRP measured in the supine compared to the seated position (CCC0.92) and with solid swallows (CCC0.96). In conclusion, the CCv4.0 protocol presents a high concordance compared to CCv3.0. In the majority of manometric diagnoses there is no reclassification of patients with provocation tests. However, the more restrictive criteria of CCv4.0 achieve a better reclassification of patients with IEM.

Frequent discrepancies among diagnostic tests for detecting lower esophageal sphincter-related obstruction.

BACKGROUND: There are frequent discrepancies among high-resolution manometry (HRM), functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP), and esophagram in identifying lower esophageal sphincter (LES)-related obstruction. We aimed to determine the frequency of those discrepancies and how they influenced clinical treatment/outcomes. METHODS: We identified patients who had all three tests (HRM, FLIP, and esophagram) and endoscopy performed for evaluation of esophageal symptoms in our Center for Esophageal Diseases. Discrepancies among the tests for the presence of LES obstruction were noted, and the performance of individual tests was compared against a consensus opinion rendered by a panel of esophagologists. Binary logistical regression was performed, and ROC curves were generated for prediction of the consensus clinical diagnosis of LES obstruction. KEY RESULTS: A total of 126 patients (mean age 57.9 ± 17.0 years; 67% female) met inclusion criteria. All three tests agreed on the presence or absence of LES obstruction in only 72 (57%) patients [no LES obstruction in 57 (45%), LES obstruction in 15 (12%)]. Thirteen patients (10%) had a change in management based on additional findings on FLIP +/- esophagram not seen on HRM with 69% having symptomatic improvement after LES-directed intervention. FLIP was the strongest predictor of a consensus diagnosis of LES obstruction by logistic regression and ROC (OR 23.36, AUC 0.796), followed by HRM (OR 15.41, AUC 0.764). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCE: High-resolution manometry, functional lumen imaging probe, and esophagram each have considerable limitations for identifying LES obstruction, and discrepancies among these tests occur frequently. Multimodal testing is often required for adequate evaluation of LES-related obstruction.

Superficial oesophageal mucosal innervation may contribute to severity of symptoms in oesophageal motility disorders.

BACKGROUND: Mechanisms underlying perception of dysphagia and chest pain have not been completely elucidated, although oesophageal mucosal afferent nerves might play an important role. AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between oesophageal mucosal afferent nerves and the severity of dysphagia and chest pain in oesophageal motility disorders. METHODS: We prospectively recruited patients with oesophageal motility disorders having dysphagia and/or chest pain from whom oesophageal biopsies were obtained. High-resolution manometry classified patients into disorders of oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) outflow and disorders of peristalsis. Symptom severity was assessed using validated questionnaires including Brief Oesophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire (BEDQ). Immunohistochemistry was performed on oesophageal biopsies to evaluate the location of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-immunoreactive mucosal afferent nerves. Findings were compared to existing data from 10 asymptomatic healthy volunteers. RESULTS: Of 79 patients, 61 patients had disorders of OGJ outflow and 18 had disorders of peristalsis. CGRP-immunoreactive mucosal nerves were more superficially located in the mucosa of patients with oesophageal motility disorders compared to healthy volunteers. Within disorders of OGJ outflow, the location of CGRP-immunoreactive nerves negatively correlated with BEDQ score both in the proximal (ρ = -0.567, p < 0.001) and distal oesophagus (ρ = -0.396, p = 0.003). In the proximal oesophagus, strong chest pain was associated with more superficially located mucosal nerves than weak chest pain (p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis showed superficial nerves in the proximal oesophagus was independently associated with severe dysphagia in disorders of OGJ outflow (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Superficial location of mucosal nerves in the proximal oesophagus might contribute to symptoms, especially severe dysphagia, in disorders of OGJ outflow.

Short-term Outcome of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Performed by the Same Endoscopist on Achalasia and Nonachalasia Esophageal Motility Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a relatively new but increasingly therapeutic option for achalasia. In recent years, POEM has been used for nonachalasia esophageal motility disorders (NAEMDs), such as diffuse esophageal spasm, esophagogastric junction outlet obstruction, and hypercontractile disorder, with some clinical success. No studies thus far compare the outcomes of these two groups. We perform the first head-to-head comparison of outcomes after POEM in patients with achalasia and NAEMD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing POEM at one university hospital by a single expert endoscopist from July 2021 to December 2022 was performed. All patients were symptomatic, and the presence of esophageal motility disorders was confirmed using multiple diagnostic modalities. These patients were then divided into 2 groups, achalasia and NAEMD, based on the underlying diagnosis. Statistical analysis of different clinical outcomes, including effectiveness and safety, was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (mean age: 59.55, females: 22) underwent POEM in the study period. Twenty patients had achalasia and 17 patients had NAEMD. The median myotomy length was 5.5 cm for the achalasia group and 10 cm for the NAEMD group. This excluded patients with esophagogastric junction outlet obstruction in which the median myotomy length was 3 cm. The procedure time, the duration of hospital stays, the rates of same-day discharge, and complications were similar between the two. Short-term outcomes of POEM for the two groups were similar with improvement in 94% of patients in the achalasia group and 93.75% in the NAEMD group. CONCLUSION: Contrary to prior observations, our study highlights that POEM is equally effective in achieving clinical improvement in patients with NAEMD as achalasia over 6 months of follow-up. In addition, POEM has a comparable safety profile in both patient groups making it a feasible therapeutic option for these debilitating and challenging disorders.