Interrogation of esophagogastric junction barrier function using the esophagogastric junction contractile integral: an observational cohort study.

The esophagogastric junction contractile integral (EGJ-CI), designed similar to distal contractile integral (DCI), has been proposed as a metric to evaluate EGJ barrier function. We determined normative values and evaluated EGJ-CI in predicting esophageal acid exposure time (AET) and symptomatic outcome in this observational cohort study. High-resolution manometry (HRM) studies were reviewed in 188 patients (55.2 ± 0.9 years, 64% female) undergoing ambulatory pH monitoring off therapy. Dominant symptoms and global symptom severity (GSS) were determined on questionnaires initially and upon follow-up. EGJ-CI was measured using the DCI tool placed across the EGJ and compared to normal controls (n = 21, 27.6 ± 0.6 years, 52% female). EGJ-CI was calculated both for a single respiratory cycle (SRC, in mmHg.cm.s) and corrected for respiratory cycle (CRC, mmHg.cm). Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the predictive potential of EGJ-CI in terms of AET and post-therapy GSS at follow-up, controlling for medical versus surgical therapy. Mean EGJ-CI values were significantly lower when AET was abnormal; EGJ-CI/SRC and EGJ-CI/CRC were 86% concordant (r = 0.84). Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, values below 121.8 mmHg.cm.s (EGJ-CI/SRC) and 39.3 mmHg.cm (EGJ-CI/CRC) predicted abnormal AET best (sensitivity 0.61 and 0.65, specificity 0.61 and 0.57, respectively). On univariate and multivariate analysis, the EGJ-CI discriminated normal from abnormal AET better than conventional LES parameters (P ≤ 0.02). After 2.7 ± 0.1 years follow-up, EGJ-CI below identified thresholds predicted better symptom response to antireflux surgery compared to medical therapy (P = 0.009). EGJ-CI is a novel HRM metric that has potential to complement or replace currently used basal LES and EGJ parameters.

Esophagogastric junction and esophageal body contraction metrics on high-resolution manometry predict esophageal acid burden.

BACKGROUND: Distal contractile integral (DCI) and esophagogastric junction contractile integral (EGJ-CI) are high-resolution manometry (HRM) software metrics assessing esophageal motor function in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Patients undergoing HRM and ambulatory pH monitoring off antisecretory therapy prospectively completed symptom questionnaires assessing symptom burden and a global symptom score (GSS) at baseline and after GERD therapy. DCI<450 mm Hg/cm/s in ≥5 swallows diagnosed ineffective esophageal motility (IEM); proportions of failed (DCI<100 mm Hg/cm/s) and weak (DCI 100-450 mm Hg/cm/s) sequences were separately assessed. EGJ-CI assessed vigor of the EGJ barrier. Univariate and multivariate analyses addressed performance of esophageal body and EGJ metrics in predicting abnormal esophageal reflux burden, and symptom outcome from antireflux therapy. KEY RESULTS: Of 188 patients (55.2 ± 0.9 year, 64% F), 42.6% had low EGJ-CI, and 25.0% had IEM. While low EGJ-CI was associated with abnormal reflux burden (P = 0.003), IEM alone was not (P = 0.2). Increasing proportions of failed swallows predicted abnormal AET better than the current IEM definition. Combined low EGJ-CI and IEM segregated abnormal total and supine acid burden compared to patients with normal EGJ-CI and no IEM (P ≤ 0.007 for each comparison). Medical therapy and surgical antireflux therapy were similarly effective in improving symptom burden; surgery resulted in better outcomes with low EGJ-CI (P ≤ 0.04), especially with intact esophageal body motor function (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: While abnormal EGJ and esophageal body metrics are collectively associated with elevated esophageal reflux burden, increasing proportions of failed swallows are better predictors of reflux burden and outcome compared to the current IEM definition.

The learning curve for interpretation of oesophageal high-resolution manometry: a prospective interventional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: High-resolution manometry has become the preferred choice of oesophagologists for oesophageal motor assessment, but the learning curve among trainees remains unclear. AIM: To determine the learning curve of high-resolution manometry interpretation. METHODS: A prospective interventional cohort study was performed on 18 gastroenterology trainees, naïve to high-resolution manometry (median age 32 ± 4.0 years, 44.4% female). An intake questionnaire and a 1-h standardised didactic session were performed at baseline. Multiple 1-h interpretation sessions were then conducted periodically over 15 months where 10 studies were discussed; 5 additional test studies were provided for interpretation, and results were compared to gold standard interpretation by the senior author. Hypothetical management decisions based on trainee interpretation were separately queried. Accuracy was compared across test interpretations and sessions to determine the learning curve, with a goal of 90% accuracy. RESULTS: Baseline accuracy was low for abnormal body motor patterns (53.3%), but higher for achalasia/outflow obstruction (65.9%). Recognition of achalasia reached 90% accuracy after six sessions (P = 0.01), while overall accurate management decisions reached this threshold by the 4th session (P < 0.001). Based on our data, the threshold of 90% accuracy for recognition of any abnormal from normal pattern was reached after 30 studies (3rd session) but fluctuated. Diagnosis of oesophageal body motor patterns remained suboptimal; accuracy of advisability of fundoplication improved, but did not reach 90%. CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution manometry has a steep learning curve among trainees. Achalasia recognition is achieved early, but diagnosis of other abnormal motor patterns and management decisions require further supervised training.

Comparison of motor diagnoses by Chicago Classification versions 2.0 and 3.0 on esophageal high-resolution manometry.

BACKGROUND: The Chicago Classification (CC) uses high-resolution manometry (HRM) software tools to designate esophageal motor diagnoses. We evaluated changes in diagnostic designations between two CC versions, and determined motor patterns not identified by either version. METHODS: In this observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing esophageal HRM over a 6-year period, proportions meeting CC 2.0 and 3.0 criteria were segregated into esophageal outflow obstruction, hypermotility, and hypomotility disorders. Contraction wave abnormalities (CWA), and 'normal' cohorts were recorded. Symptom burden was characterized using dominant symptom intensity and global symptom severity. Motor diagnoses, presenting symptoms, and symptom burden were compared between CC 2.0 and 3.0, and in cohorts not meeting CC diagnoses. KEY RESULTS: Of 2569 eligible studies, 49.9% met CC 2.0 criteria, but only 40.3% met CC 3.0 criteria (P<.0001). Between CC 2.0 and 3.0, 82.8% of diagnoses were concordant. Discordance resulted from decreasing proportions of hypermotility (4.4%) and hypomotility (9.0%) disorders, and increase in 'normal' designations (13.0%); esophageal outflow obstruction showed the least variation between CC versions. Symptom burden was higher with CC 3.0 diagnoses (P≤.005) but not with CC 2.0 diagnoses (P≥.1). Within 'normal' cohorts for both CC versions, CWA were associated with higher likelihood of esophageal symptoms, especially dysphagia, regurgitation, and heartburn, compared to truly normal studies (P≤.02 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Despite lower sensitivity, CC 3.0 identifies esophageal motor disorders with higher symptom burden compared to CC 2.0. CWA, which are associated with both transit and perceptive symptoms, are not well identified by either version.