Search

Background: The barium swallow is a commonly performed investigation, though recent decades have seen major advances in other esophageal diagnostic modalities., Purpose: The purpose of this review is to clarify the rationale for components of the barium swallow protocol, provide guidance on interpretation of findings, and describe the current role of the barium swallow in the diagnostic paradigm for esophageal dysphagia in relation to other esophageal investigations. The barium swallow protocol, interpretation, and reporting terminology are subjective and non-standardized. Common reporting terminology and an approach to their interpretation are provided. A timed barium swallow (TBS) protocol provides more standardized assessment of esophageal emptying but does not evaluate peristalsis. Barium swallow may have higher sensitivity than endoscopy for detecting subtle strictures. Barium swallow has lower overall accuracy than high-resolution manometry for diagnosing achalasia but can help secure the diagnosis in cases of equivocal manometry. TBS has an established role in objective assessment of therapeutic response in achalasia and helps identify the cause of symptom relapse. Barium swallow has a role in the evaluating manometric esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, in some cases helping to identify where it represents an achalasia-like syndrome. Barium swallow should be performed in dysphagia following bariatric or anti-reflux surgery, to assess for both structural and functional postsurgical abnormality. Barium swallow remains a useful investigation in esophageal dysphagia, though its role has evolved due to advancements in other diagnostics. Current evidence-based guidance regarding its strengths, weaknesses, and current role are described in this review., (© 2023 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: Provocative tests have been advocated to address limitations of high-resolution manometry (HRM) with wet swallows. We describe the commonly used provocative manometric manoeuvres [rapid drink challenge (RDC), multiple rapid swallows (MRS), solid swallows and the solid test meal (STM)], compare their diagnostic yield and accuracy to wet swallows, and outline their role in directing clinical management., Recent Findings: Provocative testing with RDC and STM identifies a proportion of achalasia cases missed by standard testing, and RDC can play a similar role to radiology in the evaluation of treatment response. In EGJOO, provocative testing with RDC and STM not only increase the diagnostic yield, but can also help differentiate between spurious cases and those representing true outflow obstruction likely to respond to achalasia-type therapies. MRS and STM can help determine the clinical relevance (or otherwise) of ineffective oesophageal motility, and in this setting, MRS may predict the likelihood of postfundoplication dysphagia. RDC and STM can help identify cases of postfundoplication dysphagia more likely to respond to dilatation., Summary: Provocative testing has been shown to increase diagnostic yield of HRM, clarify inconclusive diagnoses, allows corroboration of dysmotility with patient symptoms and helps direct clinical management., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nasogastric (NG) intubation for esophageal manometry can be traumatic and may be associated with a temporary reduction/absence in esophageal peristalsis. This study explored the prevalence and effect on esophageal motor function. We also hypothesized that baseline anxiety as well as markers of autonomic nerve function were correlated to attenuated esophageal peristalsis., Methods: Twenty-seven patients with esophageal symptoms referred for esophageal manometry investigation (mean age 56.8 ± 16.7 years, range 23-85 years) reported baseline anxiety score (Likert scale) preintubation. Patients had continuous heart rate and blood pressure measured prior to intubation and until 10 min after catheter withdrawal. Quality of motility was assessed for each 5 ml water swallow using standard Chicago Classification metrics., Key Results: Nasogastric-intubation elicited a significant increase in heart rate (p < 0.001), systolic (p < 0.001) and diastolic (p < 0.001) blood pressure, which was in part anticipatory. The median time taken for patients' first hypotensive peristalsis (Distal Contractile Integral; DCI ≥100 mmHg s cm) was 130 s (Interquartile range; 47-242 s) and for their first normal peristalsis (DCI ≥450 mm Hg s cm) was 150 s (IQR 61-320 s), with improvement and consistent stabilization in DCI there onward. This corresponded closely to the time for initial recovery of heart rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressure postintubation., Conclusions and Inferences: Nasogastric intubation resulted in heightened sympathetic responses and/or dampened parasympathetic responses, and an associated temporary reduction or absence in esophageal peristalsis., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). A key feature of CCv.4.0 is the more rigorous and expansive protocol that incorporates single wet swallows acquired in different positions (supine, upright) and provocative testing, including multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge. Additionally, solid bolus swallows, solid test meal, and/or pharmacologic provocation can be used to identify clinically relevant motility disorders and other conditions (eg, rumination) that occur during and after meals. The acquisition and analysis for performing these tests and the evidence supporting their inclusion in the Chicago Classification protocol is detailed in this technical review. Provocative tests are designed to increase the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of HRM studies for disorders of esophageal motility. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification, decrease the proportion of HRM studies that deliver inconclusive diagnoses and increase the number of patients with a clinically relevant diagnosis that can direct effective therapy. Another aim in establishing a standard manometry protocol for motility laboratories around the world is to facilitate procedural consistency, improve diagnostic reliability, and promote collaborative research., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) defined on high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) poses a management dilemma given marked variability in clinical manifestations. We hypothesized that findings from provocative testing (rapid drink challenge and solid swallows) could determine the clinical relevance of EGJOO., Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, we included consecutive subjects between May 2016 and January 2020 with EGJOO. Standard HRM with 5-mL water swallows was followed by provocative testing. Barium esophagography findings were obtained. Cases with structural obstruction were separated from functional EGJOO, with the latter categorized as symptom-positive or symptom-negative. Only symptom-positive subjects were considered for achalasia-type therapies. Sensitivity and specificity for clinically relevant EGJOO during 5-mL water swallows, provocative testing, and barium were calculated., Results: Of the 121 EGJOO cases, 76% had dysphagia and 25% had holdup on barium. Ninety-seven cases (84%) were defined as functional EGJOO. Symptom-positive EGJOO subjects were more likely to demonstrate abnormal motility and pressurization patterns and to reproduce symptoms during provocative testing, but not with 5-mL water swallows. Twenty-nine (30%) functional EGJOO subjects underwent achalasia-type therapy, with symptomatic response in 26 (90%). Forty-eight (49%) functional EGJOO cases were managed conservatively, with symptom remission in 78%. Although specificity was similar, provocative testing demonstrated superior sensitivity in identifying treatment responders from spontaneously remitting EGJOO (85%) compared with both 5-mL water swallows (54%; P < 0.01) and barium esophagography (54%; P = 0.02)., Discussion: Provocative testing during HRM is highly accurate in identifying clinically relevant EGJOO that benefits from therapy and should be routinely performed as part of the manometric protocol., (Copyright © 2020 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty-two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two-years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: In the absence of mucosal or structural disease, the aim of investigating the oesophagus is to provide clinically relevant measurements of function that can explain the cause of symptoms, identify pathology and guide effective management. One of the most notable recent advances in the field of oesophageal function has been high-resolution manometry (HRM). This review explores how innovation in HRM has progressed and has far from reached a plateau., Recent Findings: HRM technology, methodology and utility continue to evolve; simple additions to the swallow protocol (e.g. eating and drinking), shifting position, targeting symptoms and adding impedance sensors to the HRM catheter have led to improved diagnoses, therapeutic decision-making and outcomes. Progress in HRM persists and shows little sign of abating. The next iteration of the Chicago Classification of motor disorders will highlight these advances and will also identify opportunities for further research and innovation.

Background: The use of high-resolution manometry (HRM) to diagnose oesophageal motility disorders is based on ten single water swallows (SWS); however, this approach might not be representative of oesophageal function during the ingestion of normal food. We tested whether inclusion of a standardised solid test meal (STM) to HRM studies increases test sensitivity for major motility disorders. Additionally, we assessed the frequency and cause of patient symptoms during STM., Methods: Consecutive patients who were referred for investigation of oesophageal symptoms were recruited at Nottingham University Hospitals (Nottingham, UK) in the development study and at University Hospital Zürich (Zürich, Switzerland) in the validation study. HRM was done in the upright, seated position with a solid-state assembly. During HRM, patients ingested ten SWS, followed by a standardised 200 g STM. Diagnosis of oesophageal motility disorders was based on the Chicago Classification validated for SWS (CCv3) and with STM (CC-S), respectively. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02407938 and NCT02397616., Findings: The development cohort included 750 patients of whom 360 (48%) had dysphagia and 390 (52%) had reflux or other symptoms. The validation cohort consisted of 221 patients, including 98 (44%) with dysphagia and 123 (56%) with reflux symptoms. More patients were diagnosed with a major motility disorder by use of an STM than with SWS in the development set (321 [43%] patients diagnosed via STM vs 163 [22%] via SWS; p<0·0001) and validation set (73 [33%] vs 49 [22%]; p=0·014). The increase was most evident in patients with dysphagia (241 [67%] of 360 patients on STM vs 125 [35%] patients on SWS in the development set, p<0·0001), but was also present in those referred with reflux symptoms (64 [19%] of 329 patients vs 32 [10%] patients in the development set, p=0·00060). Reproduction of symptoms was reported by nine (1%) of 750 patients during SWS and 461 (61%) during STM (p<0·0001). 265 (83%) of 321 patients with major motility disorders and 107 (70%) of 152 patients with minor motility disorders reported symptoms during the STM (p=0·0038), compared with 89 (32%) of 277 patients with normal motility as defined with CC-S (p<0·0001)., Interpretation: The diagnostic sensitivity of HRM for major motility disorders is increased with use of the STM compared with SWS, especially in patients with dysphagia. Observations made during STM can establish motility disorders as the cause of oesophageal symptoms., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). A key feature of CCv.4.0 is the more rigorous and expansive protocol that incorporates single wet swallows acquired in different positions (supine, upright) and provocative testing, including multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge. Additionally, solid bolus swallows, solid test meal, and/or pharmacologic provocation can be used to identify clinically relevant motility disorders and other conditions (eg, rumination) that occur during and after meals. The acquisition and analysis for performing these tests and the evidence supporting their inclusion in the Chicago Classification protocol is detailed in this technical review. Provocative tests are designed to increase the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of HRM studies for disorders of esophageal motility. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification, decrease the proportion of HRM studies that deliver inconclusive diagnoses and increase the number of patients with a clinically relevant diagnosis that can direct effective therapy. Another aim in establishing a standard manometry protocol for motility laboratories around the world is to facilitate procedural consistency, improve diagnostic reliability, and promote collaborative research.

Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty-two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two-years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.

Background: Chicago Classification v4.0 recommends that if achalasia is demonstrated with single water swallows (SWS); provocative testing is not required. We determine whether provocative testing in patients with suspected achalasia can change manometric findings and reproduce symptoms. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, 127 consecutive manometry studies of patients with achalasia were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent SWS, a solid meal (SM) and/or a rapid drink challenge (RDC). Demographic data, fluoroscopy, gastroscopy, and pre‐and post‐treatment Eckardt scores were collated. Key Results: Of 127 achalasia patients (50.6 ± 16.6 years and 54.6% male), all completed a SM and 116 (91.3%) completed RDC; overall 83 were naïve (65.4%) to previous therapy. 15.4% patients with normal integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) on SWS demonstrated obstruction with RDC. SM gave a different achalasia phenotype in 44.9% of patients (p ⟨ 0.001). Twelve patients with normal IRP during SWS had persistent/recurrent obstruction during provocative testing; 83.3% had previous achalasia therapy. None of 13 patients with Type III (TIII) achalasia with SWS exhibited a change in manometric findings with provocative testing. Impedance bolus heights were lower in patients with TIII achalasia and those with normal IRP with SWS. During the SM, symptoms were reproduced in 56.7% of patients. Forty‐six of 103 patients (44.7%) underwent therapy based upon the final achalasia subtype which was defined by the provocative test result of the high‐resolution manometry (HRM) study. All treatments were effective, regardless of the achalasia subtype. Conclusions and Inferences: Manometric findings remain unchanged when TIII achalasia is diagnosed with SWS. In patients with normal IRP, Type I, or Type II achalasia during SWS, provocative testing can alter achalasia phenotype or uncover achalasia where diagnosis is unclear. Further, it can reproduce symptoms. Such findings can personalize and guide effective therapeutic decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achalasia is a major esophageal motor disorder featured by the altered relaxation of the esophagogastric junction in the absence of effective peristaltic activity. As a consequence of the esophageal outflow obstruction, achalasia patients present with clinical symptoms of dysphagia, chest pain, weight loss, and regurgitation of indigested food. Other less specific symptoms can also present including heartburn, chronic cough, and aspiration pneumonia. The delay in diagnosis, particularly when the presenting symptoms mimic those of gastroesophageal reflux disease, may be as long as several years. The widespread use of high-resolution manometry has permitted earlier detection and uncovered achalasia phenotypes which can have prognostic and therapeutic implications. Other tools have also emerged to help define achalasia severity and which can be used as objective measures of response to therapy including the timed barium esophagogram and the functional lumen imaging probe. Such diagnostic innovations, along with the increased awareness by clinicians and patients due to the availability of alternative therapeutic approaches (laparoscopic and robotic Heller myotomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy) have radically changed the natural history of the disorder. Herein, we report the most recent advances in the diagnosis, classification, and management of esophageal achalasia and underline the still-grey areas that needs to be addressed by future research to reach the goal of personalizing treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). A key feature of CCv.4.0 is the more rigorous and expansive protocol that incorporates single wet swallows acquired in different positions (supine, upright) and provocative testing, including multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge. Additionally, solid bolus swallows, solid test meal, and/or pharmacologic provocation can be used to identify clinically relevant motility disorders and other conditions (eg, rumination) that occur during and after meals. The acquisition and analysis for performing these tests and the evidence supporting their inclusion in the Chicago Classification protocol is detailed in this technical review. Provocative tests are designed to increase the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of HRM studies for disorders of esophageal motility. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification, decrease the proportion of HRM studies that deliver inconclusive diagnoses and increase the number of patients with a clinically relevant diagnosis that can direct effective therapy. Another aim in establishing a standard manometry protocol for motility laboratories around the world is to facilitate procedural consistency, improve diagnostic reliability, and promote collaborative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ESGE recommends the use of a graded pneumatic dilation protocol in achalasia, starting with a 30-mm dilation and followed by a 35-mm dilation at a planned interval of 2 - 4 weeks, with a subsequent 40-mm dilation when there is insufficient relief, over both a single balloon dilation procedure or the use of a larger balloon from the outset.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends being cautious in treating spastic motility disorders other than achalasia with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence, level of agreement 87.5 %.ESGE recommends against the routine use of botulinum toxin injections to treat patients with non-achalasia hypercontractile esophageal motility disorders (Jackhammer esophagus, distal esophageal spasm). However, if, in individual patients, endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin is chosen, ESGE recommends performing injections into four quadrants of the lower esophageal sphincter and in the lower third of the esophagus.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 78.6 %.ESGE recommends that endoscopic pylorus-directed therapy should be considered only in patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroparesis in combination with objective proof of delayed gastric emptying using a validated test, and only when medical therapy has failed.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends against the use of botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of unselected patients with gastroparesis. Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence, level of agreement 92.9 %.ESGE recommends consideration of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) in carefully selected patients only, because it is an emerging procedure with limited data on effectiveness, safety, and durability. G-POEM should be performed in expert centers only, preferably in the context of a clinical trial.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]