Search

Purpose: The anatomical location of inflammation in and around the ileal pouch affects the pouch survival rate, and diffuse inflammation has poor pouch survival rates. We aimed to clarify the symptoms and histological findings of diffuse inflammation of the pouch. Methods: We evaluated the symptoms, treatment, and histological findings according to the endoscopic phenotypes of diffuse inflammation, focal inflammation, and normal as the pouch body phenotype and afferent limb involvement, inlet involvement, cuffitis, and fistula as the peripheral findings. Results: Of the 318 pouchoscopies, 47 had diffuse inflammation, 201 had focal inflammation, and 70 were normal. Symptomatic patients had diffuse inflammation more frequently (46.8%) than focal inflammation (13.4%) and normal (14.2%), with no difference between focal inflammation and normal. Antibiotics and steroids were higher rate administered in cases of diffuse inflammation, but not in cases of focal inflammation or in normal cases. Histological inflammation, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–specific finding, and colonic metaplasia showed severity in the order of diffuse inflammation > focal inflammation > normal. The number of peripheral inflammatory findings overlapped in the following order: diffuse inflammation > focal inflammation > normal. The number of symptomatic patients increased as the number of peripheral inflammatory findings increased. Conclusion: Pouches with diffuse inflammation are more symptomatic, have a higher use of therapeutic agents, and have more severe histological inflammation, IBD-specific finding, and colonic metaplasia accompanying peripheral inflammatory findings than the other groups. The higher the overlap of inflammatory findings in the surrounding tissues, the more symptomatic the patients will appear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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/Objective: Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is often associated with dysphagia and esophageal dysmotility (ED). However, ED in patients with MSA is poorly understood. To assess the relationship between ED, dysphagia, and other clinical findings in such patients and investigate the details of ED in MSA using high-resolution manometry (HRM). Methods: Patients from The University of Tokyo Hospital with MSA who underwent swallowing examinations, esophagography, and HRM between 2017 and 2022 were enrolled. A retrospective chart review of patients' backgrounds, swallowing function, and esophageal motility was performed. ED was evaluated using the Chicago Classification version 4.0. Results: Seventy-four patients with MSA were identified. The median age was 64 years, 48 patients (65%) were male, and the cerebellar variant type was predominant (69%). Abnormal upper esophageal sphincter (UES) resting pressure was observed in 34 patients (46%) and intraesophageal stasis in 65 (88%). High-severity MSA was a risk factor for developing dysphagia, vocal fold movement impairment, and abnormal UES function (p < 0.05). However, no overt clinical risk factors for ED were identified. Various types of ED were detected using HRM, and ineffective esophageal motility was the most frequent disorder. Conclusions: ED is a common occurrence in patients with MSA. Although a high-severity MSA may be a risk factor for developing dysphagia and vocal fold motion impairment, ED can occur regardless of clinical severity. Since ED is rarely detected based on subjective symptoms, careful evaluation of esophageal motility by esophagography or HRM is warranted in patients with MSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO), defined manometrically by impaired esophagogastric junction relaxation (EGJ) with preserved peristalsis, can be artifactual, due to secondary etiologies (mechanical, medication-induced), or a true motility disorder. The purpose of this review is to go over the evolving approach to diagnosing and treating clinically relevant EGJOO. Recent Findings: Timed barium esophagram (TBE) and the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) are useful to identify clinically relevant EGJOO that merits lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapies. There are no randomized controlled trials evaluating EJGOO treatment. Uncontrolled trials show effectiveness for pneumatic dilation and peroral endoscopic myotomy to treat confirmed EGJOO; Botox and Heller myotomy may also be considered but data for confirmed EGJOO is more limited. Summary: Diagnosis of clinically relevant idiopathic EGJOO requires symptoms, exclusion of mechanical and medication-related etiologies, and confirmation of EGJ obstruction by TBE or FLIP. Botox LES injection has limited durability, it can be used in patients who are not candidates for other treatments. PD and POEM are effective in confirmed EGJOO, Heller myotomy may also be considered but data for confirmed EGJOO is limited. Randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify optimal management of EGJOO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 4th iteration of the Chicago Classification (CC v4.0) for esophageal motility disorders offers more restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to version 3.0 (CC v3.0). In light of the updated criteria for IEM, we aimed to characterize and compare the patients who retained their IEM diagnosis to those who were reclassified as normal motility, and to evaluate the clinical impact of the newly introduced CC v4.0. We performed a retrospective case–control study. We included all individuals who underwent a high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2020 and 2021 at two centers. Consecutive studies reported as IEM according to the CC v3.0 were reanalyzed according to the CC v4.0. We compared demographics, clinical, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters. Out of 452 manometry studies, 154 (34%) met criteria for IEM as per the CC v3.0 (CC v3.0 IEM group). Of those, 39 (25%) studies were reclassified as normal studies according to the CC v4.0 (CC v4.0 normal group), while the remaining 115 studies (25% of the overall cohort) retained an IEM diagnosis (CC v4.0 IEM group). The CC v4.0 normal group had more recovered contractions during solid swallows (p = 0.01), less ineffective swallows (p = 0.04), and lower acid exposure time (p = 0.02) compared to the CC4.0 IEM group. Under CC v4.0 criteria, fewer patients are diagnosed with IEM. Those diagnosed with IEM had worse esophageal function and higher acid burden. Though further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results indicate that CC v4.0 criteria restrict the IEM diagnosis to a more clinically meaningful population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management.

Background and Aim: Spectrum of esophageal motility disorders may differ according to age, but studies on this are scanty, contradictory, and included small number of patients. Accordingly, we retrospectively analyzed data of a large sample of patients to study the spectrum of esophageal motility disorders in relation to age, and to evaluate the clinical profile and high-resolution manometry parameters and achalasia subtypes according to Chicago IV criteria., Methods: Of 909 patients evaluated by high-resolution water perfusion or solid-state manometry during a 3-year period, data on 801 were finally analyzed., Results: Achalasia cardia was the commonest motility disorder of esophagus in this large study and type II was the commonest subtype. There was no difference in clinical and manometry parameters among elderly patients as compared to younger patients with achalasia. Type I achalasia patients less often had chest pain and tended to have nocturnal coughing spells more often, and patients with achalasia experiencing chest pain tended to have higher distal contractile integral (DCI) than those not having pain irrespective of age., Conclusion: The clinical and high-resolution manometry parameters among young and elderly patients with esophageal motility disorders are quite comparable. However, these differed in relation to achalasia subtypes and symptoms. Type I achalasia patients less often had chest pain and those experiencing chest pain tended to have higher DCI values than those not having pain irrespective of age., (© 2024 The Author(s). JGH Open published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: High-resolution manometry (HRM) provides measures of esophageal function which are used to classify esophageal motility disorders based on the Chicago Classification system. Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) measures are obtained from HRM, but are not included in the classification system, rendering the relationship between UES measures and esophageal motility disorders unclear. Furthermore, changes in the acceptable amount of esophageal dysfunction between versions of this classification system has created controversy. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between UES measures and esophageal function., Study Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Referral centre., Methods: HRM studies from the Calgary Gut Motility Center were reviewed for UES mean basal pressure, mean residual pressure, relaxation time-to-nadir, relaxation duration, and recovery time. Patients were grouped by number of failed swallows according to different iterations of the Chicago Classification: 0 to 4 (Group 1), 5 to 7 (Group 2), and 8 to 10 (Group 3)., Results: 2114 patients (65.1% female, median age 56 y) were included. There were significant increases in UES mean basal pressure (P < .001), mean residual pressure (P < .001), relaxation duration (P < .001), and recovery time (P < .001) between groups. Positive correlations existed between number of failed swallows and UES mean basal pressure (r = 0.143; P < .001), mean residual pressure (r = 0.201; P < .001), relaxation duration (r = 0.145; P < .001), and recovery time (r = 0.168; P < .001)., Conclusions: Differences in UES measures exist among patients with failed swallows, with a positive correlation between UES dysfunction and increasing dysmotility. Our findings illustrate that UES measures are closely related to esophageal function, and that even minor esophageal dysfunction is related to UES dysfunction., (© 2024 The Author(s). Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)