Search

Purpose of reviewWhile guidelines exist for the evaluation and management of esophageal dysphagia in the general population, dysphagia disproportionately affects the elderly. In this article, we reviewed the literature on evaluating esophageal dysphagia in elderly patients and proposed a diagnostic algorithm based on this evidence.Recent findingsIn older patients, dysphagia is often well compensated for by altered eating habits and physiologic changes, underreported by patients, and missed by healthcare providers. Once identified, dysphagia should be differentiated into oropharyngeal and esophageal dysphagia to guide diagnostic workup. For esophageal dysphagia, this review proposes starting with endoscopy with biopsies, given its relative safety even in older patients and potential for interventional therapy. If endoscopy shows a structural or mechanical cause, then further cross-sectional imaging should be considered to assess for extrinsic compression, and same session endoscopic dilation should be considered for strictures. If biopsies and endoscopy are normal, then esophageal dysmotility is more likely, and high-resolution manometry and additional workup should be performed following the updated Chicago Classification. Even after diagnosis of the root cause, complications including malnutrition and aspiration pneumonia should also be assessed and monitored, as they both result from and can further contribute to dysphagia. The successful evaluation of esophageal dysphagia in elderly patients requires a thorough, standardized approach to collecting a history, selection of appropriate diagnostic workup, and assessment of risk of potential complications, including malnutrition and aspiration.

Background & aimsAchalasia is an esophageal motility disorder associated with significant morbidity, yet achalasia-associated risk factors and outcomes are not well-characterized. Our aim was to establish a national cohort of individuals with achalasia, utilizing Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data.MethodsWe iteratively developed combinations of International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology code algorithms to validate an approach for identifying achalasia cases. We assessed algorithm accuracy for achalasia diagnosis through manual chart review of candidate achalasia cases and candidate non-achalasia controls. The prespecified end point chosen to establish algorithm performance success was achieving a 1-sided 95% confidence lower bound for a positive predictive value >85% for a random sample of 100 candidate achalasia cases. Once adequate performance was validated, we queried national VHA data to establish and characterize a cohort of individuals diagnosed with achalasia between 1999 and 2020.ResultsThree rounds of algorithm modification and validation were conducted to achieve the prespecified performance endpoint. In the final round, a combination of 3 or more International Classification of Diseases codes for achalasia in the subject's lifetime and a Current Procedural Terminology code for esophageal manometry achieved an observed 94% positive predictive value (1-sided 95% confidence lower bound of 88.5%) for identifying achalasia. Applying the algorithm to national VHA data identified a cohort of 2100 individuals with achalasia, with a median age 65 years and who were 93% male.ConclusionsUsing a rigorous validation approach, we established a national cohort of 2100 individuals with achalasia within the VHA, one of the largest established to date. This cohort can be utilized to study risk factors for achalasia and outcomes over time.

BackgroundType II achalasia (Ach2) is distinguished from other achalasia sub-types by the presence of panesophageal pressurization (PEP) of ≥30 mmHg in ≥20% swallows on high-resolution manometry (HRM). Variable manometric features in Ach2 have been observed, characterized by focal elevated pressures (FEPs) (focal/segmental pressures ≥70 mmHg within the PEP band) and/or high compression pressures (PEP ≥70 mmHg). This study aimed to examine clinical and physiologic variables among sub-groups of Ach2.MethodsThis retrospective single center study performed over 3 years (1/2019-1/2022) included adults with Ach2 on HRM who underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP), and/or barium esophagram (BE) prior to therapy. Patients were categorized into two overarching sub-groups: Ach2 without FEPs and Ach2 with FEPs. Demographic, clinical, and physiologic data were compared between these sub-groups utilizing unpaired univariate analyses.Key resultsOf 53 patients with Ach2, 40 (75%) were without FEPs and 13 (25%) had FEPs. Compared with the Ach2 sub-group without FEPs, the Ach2 sub-group with FEPs demonstrated a significantly thickened distal esophageal circular muscle on EUS (1.4 mm [SD 0.9] vs. 2.1 [0.7]; p = 0.02), higher prevalence of tertiary contractions on BE (46% vs. 100%; p = 0.0006), lower esophagogastric junction distensibility index (2.2mm2 /mmHg [0.9] vs 0.9 [0.4]; p = 0.0008) as well as higher distensive pressure (31.0 mmHg [9.8] vs. 55.4 [18.8]; p = 0.01) at 60 cc fill on FLIP, and higher prevalence of chest pain on Eckardt score (p = 0.03).Conclusions and inferencesWe identified a distinct sub-group of type II achalasia on HRM, defined as type II achalasia with focal elevated pressures. This sub-group uniquely exhibits spastic features and may benefit from personalized treatment approaches.

Background: Panesophageal pressurization (PEP) defines type II achalasia on high‐resolution‐manometry (HRM) but some patients exhibit spasm after treatment. The Chicago Classification (CC) v4.0 proposed high PEP values as predictor of embedded spasm, yet supportive evidence is lacking. Methods: Fifty seven type II achalasia patients (47 ± 18 years, 54% males) with HRM and LIP Panometry before and after treatment were retrospectively identified. Baseline HRM and FLIP studies were analyzed to identify factors associated with post‐treatment spasm, defined on HRM per CC v4.0. Results: Seven patients (12%) had spasm following treatment (peroral endoscopic myotomy 47%; pneumatic dilation [PD] 37%; laparoscopic Heller myotomy 16%). At baseline, greater median maximum PEP pressure (MaxPEP) values on HRM (77 vs 55 mmHg, p = 0.045) and spastic‐reactive contractile response pattern on FLIP (43% vs 8%, p = 0.033) were more common in patients with post‐treatment spasm while absent contractile response on FLIP was more common in patients without spasm (14% vs 66%, p = 0.014). The strongest predictor of post‐treatment spasm was the percentage of swallows with MaxPEP ≥70 mmHg (best cut‐off: ≥30%), with AUROC of 0.78. A combination of MaxPEP <70 mmHg and FLIP 60 mL pressure < 40 mmHg identified patients with lower rates of post‐treatment spasm (3% overall, 0% post‐PD) compared to those with values above these thresholds (33% overall, 83% post‐PD). Conclusions: High maximum PEP values, high FLIP 60 mL pressures and contractile response pattern on FLIP Panometry prior to treatment identified type II achalasia patients more likely to exhibit post‐treatment spasm. Evaluating these features may guide personalized patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]