Search

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution manometry (HRM) and functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) are primary and/or complementary diagnostic tools for the evaluation of esophageal motility. We aimed to assess the interrater agreement and accuracy of HRM and FLIP interpretations. METHODS: Esophageal motility specialists from multiple institutions completed the interpretation of 40 consecutive HRM and 40 FLIP studies. Interrater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables and Fleiss κ statistics for nominal variables. Accuracies of rater interpretation were assessed using the consensus of 3 experienced raters as the reference standard. RESULTS: Fifteen raters completed the HRM and FLIP studies. An excellent interrater agreement was seen in supine median integral relaxation pressure (ICC 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98), and a good agreement was seen with the assessment of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow, peristalsis, and assignment of a Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis using HRM (κ = 0.71, 0.75, and 0.70, respectively). An excellent interrater agreement for EGJ distensibility index and maximum diameter (0.91 [0.90-0.94], 0.92 [0.89-0.95]) was seen, and a moderate-to-good agreement was seen in the assignment of EGJ opening classification, contractile response pattern, and motility classification (κ = 0.68, 0.56, and 0.59, respectively) on FLIP. Rater accuracy for Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis on HRM was 82% (95% confidence interval 78%-84%) and for motility diagnosis on FLIP Panometry was 78% (95% confidence interval 72%-81%). DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates high levels of interrater agreement and accuracy in the interpretation of HRM and FLIP metrics and moderate-to-high levels for motility classification in FLIP, supporting the use of these approaches for primary or complementary evaluation of esophageal motility disorders.

Background & aimsAs many as one-half of all patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not derive benefit from acid suppression. This review outlines a personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approach to GERD symptoms.MethodsThe Best Practice Advice statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with extensive discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was not the intent of this clinical practice update. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should develop a care plan for investigation of symptoms suggestive of GERD, selection of therapy (with explanation of potential risks and benefits), and long-term management, including possible de-escalation, in a shared-decision making model with the patient. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should provide standardized educational material on GERD mechanisms, weight management, lifestyle and dietary behaviors, relaxation strategies, and awareness about the brain-gut axis relationship to patients with reflux symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should emphasize safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the treatment of GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should provide patients presenting with troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain without alarm symptoms a 4- to 8-week trial of single-dose PPI therapy. With inadequate response, dosing can be increased to twice a day or switched to a more effective acid suppressive agent once a day. When there is adequate response, PPI should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: If PPI therapy is continued in a patient with unproven GERD, clinicians should evaluate the appropriateness and dosing within 12 months after initiation, and offer endoscopy with prolonged wireless reflux monitoring off PPI therapy to establish appropriateness of long-term PPI therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: If troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain do not respond adequately to a PPI trial or when alarm symptoms exist, clinicians should investigate with endoscopy and, in the absence of erosive reflux disease (Los Angeles B or greater) or long-segment (≥3 cm) Barrett's esophagus, perform prolonged wireless pH monitoring off medication (96-hour preferred if available) to confirm and phenotype GERD or to rule out GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Complete endoscopic evaluation of GERD symptoms includes inspection for erosive esophagitis (graded according to the Los Angeles classification when present), diaphragmatic hiatus (Hill grade of flap valve), axial hiatus hernia length, and inspection for Barrett's esophagus (graded according to the Prague classification and biopsied when present). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should perform upfront objective reflux testing off medication (rather than an empiric PPI trial) in patients with isolated extra-esophageal symptoms and suspicion for reflux etiology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In symptomatic patients with proven GERD, clinicians should consider ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring on PPI as an option to determine the mechanism of persisting esophageal symptoms despite therapy (if adequate expertise exists for interpretation). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Clinicians should personalize adjunctive pharmacotherapy to the GERD phenotype, in contrast to empiric use of these agents. Adjunctive agents include alginate antacids for breakthrough symptoms, nighttime H2 receptor antagonists for nocturnal symptoms, baclofen for regurgitation or belch predominant symptoms, and prokinetics for coexistent gastroparesis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Clinicians should provide pharmacologic neuromodulation, and/or referral to a behavioral therapist for hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies in patients with functional heartburn or reflux disease associated with esophageal hypervigilance reflux hypersensitivity and/or behavioral disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In patients with proven GERD, laparoscopic fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation are effective surgical options, and transoral incisionless fundoplication is an effective endoscopic option in carefully selected patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with proven GERD, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is an effective primary anti-reflux intervention in obese patients, and a salvage option in non-obese patients, whereas sleeve gastrectomy has potential to worsen GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Candidacy for invasive anti-reflux procedures includes confirmatory evidence of pathologic GERD, exclusion of achalasia, and assessment of esophageal peristaltic function.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to systematically evaluate a classification scheme of secondary peristalsis using functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry through comparison with primary peristalsis on high-resolution manometry (HRM). METHODS: 706 adult patients that completed FLIP and HRM for primary esophageal motility evaluation and 35 asymptomatic volunteers (controls) were included. Secondary peristalsis, that is, contractile responses (CRs), was classified on FLIP panometry by the presence and pattern of contractility as normal (NCR), borderline (BCR), impaired/disordered (IDCR), absent (ACR), or spastic-reactive (SRCR). Primary peristalsis on HRM was assessed according to the Chicago Classification. RESULTS: All 35 of the controls had antegrade contractions on FLIP panometry with either NCR (89%) or BCR (11%). The average percentages of normal swallows on HRM varied across contractile response patterns from 84% in NCR, 68% in BCR, 39% in IDCR, to 11% in ACR, as did the percentage of failed swallows on HRM: 4% in NCR, 12% in BCR, 36% in IDCR, and 79% in ACR. SRCR on FLIP panometry was observed in 18/57 (32%) patients with type III achalasia, 4/15 (27%) with distal esophageal spasm, and 7/15 (47%) with hypercontractile esophagus on HRM. CONCLUSIONS: The FLIP panometry contractile response patterns reflect a pathophysiologic transition from normal to abnormal esophageal peristaltic function with shared features with primary peristaltic function/dysfunction on HRM. Thus, these patterns of the contractile response to distension can facilitate the evaluation of esophageal motility using FLIP panometry.

INTRODUCTION: Functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry can evaluate esophageal motility in response to sustained esophageal distension at the time of sedated endoscopy. This study aimed to describe a classification of esophageal motility using FLIP panometry and evaluate it against high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0). METHODS: Five hundred thirty-nine adult patients who completed FLIP and HRM with a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis were included in the primary analysis. Thirty-five asymptomatic volunteers (controls) and 148 patients with an inconclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis or systemic sclerosis were also described. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and the contractile response (CR) to distension (i.e., secondary peristalsis) were evaluated with a 16-cm FLIP during sedated endoscopy and analyzed using a customized software program. HRM was classified according to CCv4.0. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 156 patients (29%) had normal motility on FLIP panometry, defined by normal EGJ opening and a normal or borderline CR; 95% of these patients had normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility on HRM. Two hundred two patients (37%) had obstruction with weak CR, defined as reduced EGJ opening and absent CR or impaired/disordered CR, on FLIP panometry; 92% of these patients had a disorder of EGJ outflow per CCv4.0. DISCUSSION: Classifying esophageal motility in response to sustained distension with FLIP panometry parallels the swallow-associated motility evaluation provided with HRM and CCv4.0. Thus, FLIP panometry serves as a well-tolerated method that can complement, or in some cases be an alternative to HRM, for evaluating esophageal motility disorders.

Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function is of fundamental importance in the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Impaired EGJ barrier function leads to excessive distal esophageal acid exposure or, in severe cases, esophagitis. Hence, proposed high-resolution manometry (HRM) metrics assessing EGJ integrity are clinically important and were a focus of the Chicago Classification (CC) working group for inclusion in CC v4.0. However, the EGJ is a complex sphincter comprised of both crural diaphragm (CD) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) component, each of which is subject to independent physiological control mechanisms and pathophysiology. No single metric can capture all attributes of EGJ barrier function. The working group considered several potential metrics of EGJ integrity including LES-CD separation, the EGJ contractile integral (EGJ-CI), the respiratory inversion point (RIP), and intragastric pressure. Strong recommendations were made regarding LES-CD separation as indicative of hiatus hernia, although the numerical threshold for defining hiatal hernia was not agreed upon. There was no agreement on the significance of the RIP, only that it could localize either above the LES or between the LES and CD in cases of hiatus hernia. There was agreement on how to measure the EGJ-CI and that it should be referenced to gastric pressure in units of mmHg cm, but the numerical threshold indicative of a hypotensive EGJ varied widely among reports and was not agreed upon. Intragastric pressure was endorsed as an important metric worthy of further study but there was no agreement on a numerical threshold indicative of abdominal obesity.

Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CC v4.0), published in 2021, presents several modifications largely aimed at minimizing over-diagnosis of inconclusive patterns on high-resolution manometry (HRM). These include: 1) introduction of a standardized HRM protocol for consistency among centers, 2) emphasis on the need for supportive data in instances of inconclusive manometric patterns, 3) required presence of relevant symptoms in certain instances to reduce over-diagnosis and inappropriate interventions, and 4) classification as disorders of EGJ outflow or disorders of peristalsis. These updates aim to improve the clinical application of HRM and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy fails to provide adequate symptom control in up to 50% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Although a proportion do not require ongoing PPI therapy, a diagnostic approach to identify candidates appropriate for PPI cessation is not available. This study aimed to examine the clinical utility of prolonged wireless reflux monitoring to predict the ability to discontinue PPIs. METHODS: This double-blinded clinical trial performed over 3 years at 2 centers enrolled adults with troublesome esophageal symptoms of heartburn, regurgitation, and/or chest pain and inadequate PPI response. Participants underwent prolonged wireless reflux monitoring (off PPIs for ≥7 days) and a 3-week PPI cessation intervention. Primary outcome was tolerance of PPI cessation (discontinued or resumed PPIs). Symptom burden was quantified using the Reflux Symptom Questionnaire electronic Diary (RESQ-eD). RESULTS: Of 128 enrolled, 100 participants met inclusion criteria (mean age, 48.6 years; 41 men). Thirty-four participants (34%) discontinued PPIs. The strongest predictor of PPI discontinuation was number of days with acid exposure time (AET) > 4.0% (odds ratio, 1.82; P < .001). Participants with 0 days of AET > 4.0% had a 10 times increased odds of discontinuing PPI than participants with 4 days of AET > 4.0%. Reduction in symptom burden was greater among the discontinued versus resumed PPI group (RESQ-eD, -43.7% vs -5.3%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with typical reflux symptoms, inadequate PPI response, and absence of severe esophagitis, acid exposure on reflux monitoring predicted the ability to discontinue PPIs without symptom escalation. Upfront reflux monitoring off acid suppression can limit unnecessary PPI use and guide personalized management. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03202537).

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.

Age-related changes in esophageal function involve increased rates of dysmotility with advancing age (sometimes described as presbyesophagus).1–4 Specifically, advanced age has been associated with increased lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and decreased peristaltic vigor.1–4 However, the mechanisms underlying these changes, including the relative relationship of primary peristalsis and secondary peristalsis over the lifespan, remain incompletely understood. Current approaches assess primary peristalsis using high-resolution manometry (HRM), with esophageal motility disorders defined using the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), and secondary peristalsis using functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry.5,6 Although HRM and FLIP panometry motility diagnoses are often analogous, they can sometimes differ. For example, abnormal secondary peristalsis can occur when primary peristalsis is normal, which has been associated with reflux and non-obstructive dysphagia.7,8 This study aimed to examine the effect of age on primary peristalsis and secondary peristalsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is commonly used outside of Food and Drug Administration indication for a broad range of conditions such as extra-esophageal reflux and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia. While this may be appropriate in some scenarios, it has also resulted in widespread inappropriate PPI use. At the same time, data suggesting adverse effects of long-term PPI therapy are multiplying, albeit mainly from low quality studies. The systematic review by Scarpignato et al. (BMC Med 14:179, 2016) addresses this dilemma with a comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits of PPI use. The authors concluded that, while PPIs are highly efficacious in erosive acid-peptic disorders, efficacy is not equaled in other conditions. In some instances, they found no supportive evidence of benefit. With respect to side effects, they indicated that the questionable harms associated with PPI therapy do not outweigh the benefits afforded by appropriate PPI use. However, inappropriate PPI use results in increased healthcare costs and unnecessary exposure to potential adverse effects. Ideally, PPI therapy should be personalized, based on indication, effectiveness, patient preference, and risk assessment.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0718-z .

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common, but less so than widely reported because of inconsistencies in definition. In clinical practice, the diagnosis is usually based on a symptom assessment without testing, and the extent of diagnostic testing pursued should be limited to that which guides management or which protects the patient from the risks of a potentially morbid treatment or an undetected early (or imminent) esophageal adenocarcinoma or which does both. When testing is pursued, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the most useful initial diagnostic test because it evaluates for the major potential morbidities (Barrett's, stricture, and cancer) associated with GERD and facilitates the identification of some alternative diagnostic possibilities such as eosinophilic esophagitis. However, endoscopy is insensitive for diagnosing GERD because most patients with GERD have non-erosive reflux disease, a persistent diagnostic dilemma. Although many studies have tried to objectify the diagnosis of GERD with improved technology, this is ultimately a pragmatic diagnosis based on response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, and, in the end, response to PPI therapy becomes the major indication for continued PPI therapy. Conversely, in the absence of objective criteria for GERD and the absence of apparent clinical benefit, PPI therapy is not indicated and should be discontinued. PPIs are well tolerated and safe, but nothing is perfectly safe, and in the absence of measurable benefit, even a miniscule risk dominates the risk-benefit assessment.