Search

Background and Purpose: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most frequently diagnosed esophageal motility abnormality and characterized by diminished esophageal peristaltic vigor and frequent weak, absent, and/or fragmented peristalsis on high‐resolution esophageal manometry. Despite its commonplace occurrence, this condition can often provoke uncertainty for both patients and clinicians. Although the diagnostic criteria used to define this condition has generally become more stringent over time, it is unclear whether the updated criteria result in a more precise clinical diagnosis. While IEM is often implicated with symptoms of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, the strength of these associations remains unclear. In this review, we share a practical approach to IEM highlighting its definition and evolution over time, commonly associated clinical symptoms, and important management and treatment considerations. We also share the significance of this condition in patients undergoing evaluation for anti‐reflux surgery and consideration for lung transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be challenging given varying symptom presentations, and complex multifactorial pathophysiology. The gold standard for GERD diagnosis is esophageal acid exposure time (AET) measured by pH‐metry. A variety of additional diagnostic tools are available. The goal of this consensus was to assess the individual merits of GERD diagnostic tools based on current evidence, and provide consensus recommendations following discussion and voting by experts. Methods: This consensus was developed by 15 experts from nine countries, based on a systematic search of the literature, using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) methodology to assess the quality and strength of the evidence, and provide recommendations regarding the diagnostic utility of different GERD diagnosis tools, using AET as the reference standard. Key Results: A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial is appropriate for patients with heartburn and no alarm symptoms, but nor for patients with regurgitation, chest pain, or extraesophageal presentations. Severe erosive esophagitis and abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI are clearly indicative of GERD. Esophagram, esophageal biopsies, laryngoscopy, and pharyngeal pH monitoring are not recommended to diagnose GERD. Patients with PPI‐refractory symptoms and normal endoscopy require reflux monitoring by pH or pH‐impedance to confirm or exclude GERD, and identify treatment failure mechanisms. GERD confounders need to be considered in some patients, pH‐impedance can identify supragrastric belching, impedance‐manometry can diagnose rumination. Conclusions: Erosive esophagitis on endoscopy and abnormal pH or pH‐impedance monitoring are the most appropriate methods to establish a diagnosis of GERD. Other tools may add useful complementary information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease‐specific questions, intended to encourage question‐asking by patients and enhance patient‐physician communication. To date, a dysphagia‐specific QPL has not been developed for patients with esophageal dysphagia symptoms. We aim to develop a dysphagia‐specific QPL incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives, applying rigorous methodology. Methods: The QPL content was generated applying a two‐round modified Delphi (RAND/UCLA) method among 11 experts. In round one, experts provided five answers to the prompts: "What general questions should patients ask when being seen for dysphagia?" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking but, given my experience, I believe they should be asking?" In round two, experts rated proposed questions on a 5‐point Likert scale. Responses rated as "essential" or "important", determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for inclusion. Subsequently, 20 patients from Stanford Health Care were enrolled to modify the preliminary QPL, to incorporate their perspectives and opinions. Patients independently rated questions applying the same 5‐point Likert scale. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open‐endedly asking "Are there questions we didn't ask, that you think we should?" Key Results: Eleven experts participated in both voting rounds. Of 85 questions generated from round one, 60 (70.6%) were accepted for inclusion, meeting a median value of ≥4.0. Questions were combined to reduce redundancy, narrowing down to 44 questions. Questions were categorized into the following six themes: 1. "What is causing my dysphagia?"; 2. "Associated symptoms"; 3. "Testing for dysphagia"; 4. "Lifestyle modifications"; 5. "Treatment for dysphagia"; and 6. "Prognosis". The largest number of questions covered "What is causing my dysphagia" (27.3%). Twenty patients participated and modified the QPL. Of the 44 questions experts agreed were important, only 30 questions (68.2%) were accepted for inclusion. Six patients proposed 10 additional questions and after incorporating the suggested questions, the final dysphagia‐specific QPL created by esophageal experts and modified by patients consisted of 40 questions. Conclusions & Inferences: Incorporating expert and patient perspectives, we developed a dysphagia‐specific QPL to enhance patient‐physician communication. Our study highlights importance of incorporating patient perspective when developing such a communication tool. Further studies will measure the impact of this communication tool on patient engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioids are well known to cause adverse effects on the gastrointestinal tract including nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Data regarding how opioids affect the esophagus are more limited. Opioid‐induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED) is a clinical syndrome defined by chronic opioid use (≥3 months), esophageal symptoms (mainly dysphagia), and esophageal motility abnormalities diagnosed by manometry including achalasia type III, hypercontractile esophagus, distal esophageal spasm, and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Up until now, the effect of opioids on esophageal motility assessed by the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) had not been described. In this issue of NGM, Patel et al. report that FLIP assessment in patients with esophageal symptoms showed that chronic opioid users have a significant increase in repetitive retrograde contractions, but no significant reduction in distensibility at the esophagogastric junction compared to non‐users. Additionally, perceptive symptoms were higher, and quality of life metrics were lower in the chronic opioid users. This review article will discuss our current understanding of OIED and provide context for this latest study in chronic opioid users. Further investigation with larger prospective studies is needed to understand the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of OIED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) evaluates esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and esophageal contractility. Both post hoc and real‐time analyses are possible, but reproducibility and reliability of analysis remain undefined. This study assesses inter‐ and intra‐rater agreement of normative FLIP measurements among novice and experienced users. Methods: Eight motility experts from different institutions independently evaluated de‐identified video recordings from 27 asymptomatic healthy subjects using FLIP. Interpretation methods simulating a post‐procedure and a live procedure setting were tested. Novice FLIP users (n = 3) received training prior to post‐procedure interpretation. Experienced FLIP users (n = 5) interpreted using both methods. Users recorded maximum EGJ and distal esophageal body diameter, distensive pressure, and EGJ distensibility index (EGJ‐DI), at balloon fill volumes of 50‐, 60‐, and 70 ml, as well as repetitive antegrade contractions (RACs). Inter‐ and intra‐rater agreements of diameters, distensive pressure and EGJ‐DI were assessed by intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC). Percentage agreement evaluated inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability for RACs. Key Results: Novice and experienced users acquired normative FLIP metrics. Good‐to‐excellent inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability were achieved for all variables at 60 ml balloon fill volumes. Median parameters at 60 ml balloon fill volume were as follows: EGJ‐DI 5.5 mm2/mmHg, maximum EGJ diameter 18.6 mm, distensive pressure at maximum EGJ diameter 48.1 mmHg, and distal esophageal body diameter 19.5 mm. Conclusions and Inferences: Normative FLIP parameters can be reliably extracted from FLIP videos using both real‐time and post hoc analyses, with high reliability between experienced and novice users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]