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.

DescriptionThe purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.MethodsThe BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

BACKGROUND: Optimal ambulatory reflux monitoring methodology in symptomatic reflux patients continues to be debated. AIMS: To utilise published literature and expert opinion to develop recommendation statements addressing use of ambulatory reflux monitoring in clinical practice METHODS: The RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) was utilised among 17 experts with discussion, revision and two rounds of ranking of recommendation statements. Ambulatory reflux monitoring protocol, methodology and thresholds ranked as appropriate by ≥80% of panellists met the criteria for appropriateness. RESULTS: Prolonged (96-h recommended) wireless pH monitoring off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was identified as the appropriate diagnostic tool to assess the need for acid suppression in patients with unproven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and persisting typical reflux symptoms despite once-daily PPI. Acid exposure time (AET) 6.0% across ≥2 days is conclusive evidence for GERD and supports treatment for GERD, while AET >10% across ≥2 days identifies severe acid burden that supports escalation of anti-reflux treatment. In previously proven GERD, impedance-pH monitoring on PPI is helpful in defining refractory GERD and mechanisms of continued symptoms; the presence of  4.0% and positive reflux-symptom association support escalation of anti-reflux treatment, including use of invasive therapeutics. CONCLUSIONS: Statements meeting appropriateness for average clinical care have been identified when utilising reflux monitoring in patients with typical reflux symptoms and PPI non-response.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues to be among the most common diseases seen by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Our understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved. During this time, scrutiny of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has increased considerably. Although PPIs remain the medical treatment of choice for GERD, multiple publications have raised questions about adverse events, raising doubts about the safety of long-term use and increasing concern about overprescribing of PPIs. New data regarding the potential for surgical and endoscopic interventions have emerged. In this new document, we provide updated, evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance for the evaluation and management of GERD, including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to evaluate the evidence and the strength of recommendations. Key concepts and suggestions that as of this writing do not have sufficient evidence to grade are also provided.

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.

This study was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of the green tea-derived Polyphenon E (Poly E) in patients with Barrett's Esophagus (BE). Subjects were randomized to a 6-month, twice daily (BID) oral treatment of placebo or Poly E (200, 400, or 600 mg). Endoscopic evaluation, including biopsies, was performed before and after treatment. The primary objective was to demonstrate safety; secondary objectives investigated catechin accumulation and effects in clinical specimens. Of the 44 enrolled subjects, 11 received placebo, and 33 received Poly E. No dose-limiting toxicities were encountered, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. The recommended phase II dose was 600 mg twice daily. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) in Poly E-treated subjects were grade I and II nausea, grade I belching, and grade I lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) elevation. No treatment-related AEs were reported in placebo-treated subjects, aside from grade I laboratory abnormalities. Pill counts and subject diaries were not consistently collected, and compliance was difficult to determine. However, on the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis, there was a significant relationship between Poly E dose and esophageal EGCG level--mean changes (pmol/g) of 0.79 (placebo), 6.06 (200 mg), 35.67 (400 mg), and 34.95 (600 mg); P = 0.005. There was a possible relationship between Poly E dose and urine PGE-M concentration. In conclusion, Poly E was well-tolerated, and treatment with Poly E (400 and 600 mg) but not Poly E (200 mg) or placebo resulted in clinically relevant and detectable EGCG accumulation in the target organ, esophageal mucosa.

Objective: High‐resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. HRM is typically performed in the office with local anesthesia only, and many patients find it unpleasant and painful. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the use of a virtual reality (VR) headset on pain and anxiety outcomes in patients with dysphagia undergoing HRM. Methods: Patients with dysphagia were prospectively recruited and randomized to undergo HRM with and without VR distraction. Data collected included the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory‐6 (STAI‐6), the Short‐Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, heart rate, and galvanic skin response (GSR) tracings. Results: Forty subjects completed the study, including 20 subjects in the intervention arm and 20 in the control arm. There was evidence of a significant positive effect of VR on calmness (p = 0.0095) STAI‐6 rating, as well as on physiologic measures of pain with significantly decreased GSR rise time (p = 0.0137) and average rate of change of conductance change (p = 0.0035). Conclusion: The use of VR during HRM catheter insertion increased calmness compared to control. Change of skin conductance was also reduced in the VR group, suggesting decreased physiologic pain. This study supports the consideration of the use of VR as a distraction tool to improve patient comfort during HRM. Level of Evidence: 2 Laryngoscope, 134:1118–1126, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been the preferred operation for obese patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); however, some patients are hesitant to undergo bypass. Obese patients have a multifactorial predisposition to GERD, including lower esophageal sphincter (LES) dysfunction and aberrant pressure gradients across their diaphragmatic crura. Among non-obese patients, anti-reflux surgery (ARS) with hiatal hernia (HH) repair and LES augmentation has shown excellent long-term results. We aimed to determine whether patient satisfaction and GERD recurrence differed between obese and non-obese patients who underwent ARS. Methods: Review of patients who underwent ARS between January 2012 and June 2021 was performed. Perioperative and postoperative characteristics were compared across three BMI groups: BMI < 30 kg/m2, 30 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 35 kg/m2, and BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. Results: Four-hundred thirteen patients were identified, of which 294 (71.1%) had BMI < 30 kg/m2, 87 (21.1%) were 30 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 35 kg/m2, and 32 (7.7%) had a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. Patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 had higher preoperative manometric and EndoFLIP™ intra-balloon pressure at the LES than those with lower BMIs. This value was increased to a similar level throughout ARS across the three cohorts. Post-operative GERD-specific satisfaction was similar across the three cohorts, as were rates of postoperative reflux and hiatal hernia recurrence on barium swallow; rates of reoperation were low. Conclusions: ARS with HH repair and LES augmentation may be appropriate for select patients across a range of BMIs, including those with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 who are hesitant to undergo RYGB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]