Search

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.

Since publication of Chicago Classification version 3.0 in 2015, the clinical and research applications of high-resolution manometry (HRM) have expanded. In order to update the Chicago Classification, an International HRM Working Group consisting of 52 diverse experts worked for two years and utilized formally validated methodologies. Compared with the prior iteration, there are four key modifications in Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0). First, further manometric and non-manometric evaluation is required to arrive at a conclusive, actionable diagnosis of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO). Second, EGJOO, distal esophageal spasm, and hypercontractile esophagus are three manometric patterns that must be accompanied by obstructive esophageal symptoms of dysphagia and/or non-cardiac chest pain to be considered clinically relevant. Third, the standardized manometric protocol should ideally include supine and upright positions as well as additional manometric maneuvers such as the multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge. Solid test swallows, postprandial testing, and pharmacologic provocation can also be considered for particular conditions. Finally, the definition of ineffective esophageal motility is more stringent and now encompasses fragmented peristalsis. Hence, CCv4.0 no longer distinguishes between major versus minor motility disorders but simply separates disorders of EGJ outflow from disorders of peristalsis.

Background & aimsWireless pH monitoring measures esophageal acid exposure time (AET) for up to 96 hours. We evaluated competing methods of analysis of wireless pH data.MethodsAdult patients with persisting reflux symptoms despite acid suppression (n = 322, 48.5 ± 0.9 years, 61.7% women) from 2 tertiary centers were evaluated using symptom questionnaires and wireless pH monitoring off therapy, from November 2013 through September 2017; 30 healthy adults (control subjects; 26.9 ± 1.5 years; 60.0% women) were similarly evaluated. Concordance of daily AET (physiologic 6%) for 2 or more days constituted the predominant AET pattern. Each predominant pattern (physiologic, borderline, or pathologic) in relation to data from the first day, and total averaged AET, were compared with other interpretation paradigms (first 2 days, best day, or worst day) and with symptoms.ResultsAt least 2 days of AET data were available from 96.9% of patients, 3 days from 90.7%, and 4 days from 72.7%. A higher proportion of patients had a predominant pathologic pattern (31.4%) than control subjects (11.1%; P = .03). When 3 or more days of data were available, 90.4% of patients had a predominant AET pattern; when 2 days of data were available, 64.1% had a predominant AET pattern (P < .001). Day 1 AET was discordant with the predominant pattern in 22.4% of patients and was less strongly associated with the predominant pattern compared with 48 hour AET (P = .059) or total averaged AET (P = .02). Baseline symptom burden was higher in patients with a predominant pathologic pattern compared with a predominant physiologic pattern (P = .02).ConclusionsThe predominant AET pattern on prolonged wireless pH monitoring can identify patients at risk for reflux symptoms and provides gains over 24 hours and 48 hours recording, especially when results from the first 2 days are discordant or borderline.

BackgroundThis manuscript summarizes consensus reached by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) for the performance, terminology used, and interpretation of anorectal function testing including anorectal manometry (focused on high-resolution manometry), the rectal sensory test, and the balloon expulsion test. Based on these measurements, a classification system for disorders of anorectal function is proposed.MethodsTwenty-nine working group members (clinicians/academics in the field of gastroenterology, coloproctology, and gastrointestinal physiology) were invited to six face-to-face and three remote meetings to derive consensus between 2014 and 2018.Key recommendationsThe IAPWG protocol for the performance of anorectal function testing recommends a standardized sequence of maneuvers to test rectoanal reflexes, anal tone and contractility, rectoanal coordination, and rectal sensation. Major findings not seen in healthy controls defined by the classification are as follows: rectoanal areflexia, anal hypotension and hypocontractility, rectal hyposensitivity, and hypersensitivity. Minor and inconclusive findings that can be present in health and require additional information prior to diagnosis include anal hypertension and dyssynergia.Conclusions and inferencesThis framework introduces the IAPWG protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function based on objective physiological measurement. The use of a common language to describe results of diagnostic tests, standard operating procedures, and a consensus classification system is designed to bring much-needed standardization to these techniques.

The reduction in the blood supply following the 2019 coronavirus pandemic has been exacerbated by the increased use of balanced resuscitation with blood components including whole blood in urban trauma centers. This reduction of the blood supply has diminished the ability of blood banks to maintain a constant supply to meet the demands associated with periodic surges of urban trauma resuscitation. This scarcity has highlighted the need for increased vigilance through blood product stewardship, particularly among severely bleeding trauma patients (SBTPs). This stewardship can be enhanced by the identification of reliable clinical and laboratory parameters which accurately indicate when massive transfusion is futile. Consequently, there has been a recent attempt to develop scoring systems in the prehospital and emergency department settings which include clinical, laboratory, and physiologic parameters and blood products per hour transfused as predictors of futile resuscitation. Defining futility in SBTPs, however, remains unclear, and there is only nascent literature which defines those criteria which reliably predict futility in SBTPs. The purpose of this review is to provide a focused examination of the literature in order to define reliable parameters of futility in SBTPs. The knowledge of these reliable parameters of futility may help define a foundation for drawing conclusions which will provide a clear roadmap for traumatologists when confronted with SBTPs who are candidates for the declaration of futility. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature regarding the definition of futile resuscitation for patients with trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock, and we propose a concise roadmap for clinicians to help them use well-defined clinical, laboratory, and viscoelastic parameters which can define futility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Childhood psychosocial experiences can have a lifelong effect on health. These experiences can be measured together as positive and adverse childhood experiences or individually as positive childhood experiences (PCEs) or adverse childhood experiences. Most research on PCEs has focused on how PCEs promote health outcomes. However, limited research has been conducted on the prevalence of PCEs among adolescents in local areas served by public health departments. The St. Joseph County Department of Health developed a study to test the feasibility of surveillance of PCEs through local public health departments and to establish a prevalence for PCE exposure among a population of urban public-school students in Indiana. We conducted a survey in spring 2022 that collected demographic information on students at 2 high schools and 1 middle school and assessed exposure to PCEs. We assessed prevalence of PCEs on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = usually, 4 = always). PCE scores were grouped into low (0-2), medium (3-5), and high (6 or 7). The prevalence of individual PCE items ranged from 35.6% to 86.8%. Among 798 respondents, 189 (23.7%) reported low PCE scores, 396 (49.6%) reported medium scores, and 213 (26.7%) reported high scores. This research demonstrates the feasibility of school-based PCE surveillance and establishes a baseline prevalence of PCE exposure among a population of middle and high school students. These methods are applicable to different contexts and can provide both local health departments and school systems with a new tool to address adverse childhood experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]