Search

Background: Esophageal manometry utilizes water swallows to evaluate esophageal motor abnormalities in patients with dysphagia, chest pain, or reflux symptoms. Although manometry is the gold standard for evaluation of these symptoms, patients with dysphagia often have normal results in manometry studies., Aim: The objective of this work was to test the hypothesis that challenging the esophagus with viscous apple sauce boluses uncovers motor abnormalities in patients with dysphagia not seen when using water swallows., Methods: High-resolution esophageal manometry was performed using ten water swallows followed by ten apple sauce swallows in consecutive subjects presenting with dysphagia. Subjects with grossly abnormal water swallow evaluations were excluded. Each swallow was categorized as normal, hypotensive (distal isobaric contour plots of < 30 mmHg over >5 cm), or simultaneous (distal esophageal velocity ≥ 8.0 cm/s). Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) was defined as ≥ 30% hypotensive swallows, and pressurization was defined as ≥ 20% simultaneous pressure waves., Results: Data from 41 subjects was evaluated. Overall, 96.3% of water swallows were normal, 2.9% hypotensive, and 0.7% simultaneous. Only 70.3% of viscous swallows were normal; 16.7% were hypotensive and 13.0% were simultaneous (P < 0.001 all groups). Seven (17.1%) met criteria for IEM, and pressurization with viscous swallows was observed for nine (22.0%). Fourteen subjects (34.1%) had abnormal results from viscous studies. The presence of any abnormal water swallows was predictive of abnormal viscous swallows (OR = 9.00, CI = 2.15-80.0), although the presence of hypotensive or simultaneous water swallows was not associated with IEM (OR = 0.63, CI = 0.16-2.17) or pressurization (OR = 7.00, CI = 0.90-315.4) with viscous apple sauce., Conclusions: Apple sauce challenge increased identification of classifiable motor disorders in patients with dysphagia and may be preferred to alternative bolus materials.

Background: High-resolution manometry (HRM) makes it possible to better evaluate spatial and temporal characteristics of esophageal motor function. This technology is revealing new observations regarding disordered motor function in esophageal diseases., Goal: The aim of this study was to define the essential features of achalasia using HRM., Study: We performed HRM on 27 patients with achalasia, 10 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, and 10 controls. Ten 5 mL water swallows were recorded with a solid-state manometric assembly incorporating 36 circumferential sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals., Results: The resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure was greater in achalasia than in controls or gastroesophageal reflux disease. There was an absence of peristalsis in the smooth muscle esophagus and failure of lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. The resting upper esophageal sphincter pressure was not different among the 3 groups. In addition to the typical manometric findings of achalasia, new observations are included. Esophageal shortening, pressurization of the esophagus, and rhythmic contractions of the upper esophageal sphincter and striated muscle esophagus were frequently observed., Conclusions: HRM demonstrates alterations of esophageal motor function in achalasia that are not easily observed with other manometric techniques.

Background and Aims: Manometry is used widely in the evaluation of esophageal disorders. Our aim was to assess the intra- and interobserver reliability of esophageal manometry and identify potential causes for diagnostic variability., Methods: Seventy-two esophageal manometry tracings were selected randomly from archives. Eight interpreters randomly and blindly evaluated tracings. Interpreters were divided into 3 groups: highly experienced (N = 3), moderately experienced (N = 3), and inexperienced (N = 2). Each tracing was examined for abnormalities involving the lower-esophageal sphincter (LES) and esophageal body. Interpreters rendered a single diagnosis from a list of 7 manometric diagnoses: normal, nutcracker, hypertensive LES, hypotensive LES, diffuse esophageal spasm (DES), nonspecific/ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and achalasia. Intra- and interobserver agreements were determined and reasons for varied diagnoses were investigated., Results: Overall intraobserver agreement was good (kappa = .63, P < .0001). There was no difference ( P = .9) between the highly and midexperienced interpreters (kappa = .61 and .65, respectively). Interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of achalasia and normal motility was good (kappa = .65 and .56, respectively). However, other manometric diagnoses yielded only fair interobserver agreement (kappa = .27). DES, nonspecific/ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and hypo- and hypertensive LES diagnoses showed the least agreement. Poor adherence to established manometric criteria, misinterpretation of intrabolus pressure, and technical inadequacy were the most common sources of inconsistency in interpretations., Conclusions: Manometric diagnoses of conditions other than normal or achalasia are variable and have poor interobserver variability. Given their uncertain clinical implications, we must either redefine them or eliminate them from practice.

Background/aimsIn high-resolution manometry lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) is measured relative to intragastric pressure, however Gastric Marker™ (GM) location used to determine resting LESP is not well established with hiatal hernia (HH). We test the hypothesis that measured resting LESP varies with HH based on GM location.MethodsSubjects with HH ≥ 2 cm were included. The eSleeve™ was adjusted to span only the LES, excluding the crural diaphragm (CD). Resting LESP was determined by placing the GM below and above the CD (in the position yielding the highest resting LESP). Resting pressure across the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) to CD and pressure in the HH relative to subdiaphragmatic intragastric pressure were also measured.ResultsHH ≥ 2 cm was present in 98 patients (mean length 2.7 cm). LESP decreased when GM was moved from below the CD into the HH: respiratory minimum LESP 7.5 ± 1.1 to 3.6 ± 0.9 mmHg; P < 0.001, mean LESP 17.7 ± 1.3 to 13.7 ± 1.1 mmHg; P < 0.001. When the eSleeve encompassed the LES and CD, the respiratory minimum pressure was 12.2 ± 0.9 mmHg and mean pressure was 23.9 ± 1.0 mmHg pressure (P < 0.001 for both). Pressure in the hernia pouch was greater than intragastric pressure: respiratory minimum 3.0 ± 0.7 mmHg and mean 9.0 ± 0.8 mmHg (P < 0.001 for both). pH studies showed a trend toward an association between abnormal distal esophagus acid exposure and lower resting LESP.ConclusionsGM placement in the HH produces lower resting LESPs. This may provide a more physiologic representation of LESP in HH.