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.

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Using hydrogen breath testing (HBT) to diagnose small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) remains controversial in patients with functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, and unknown in those with hypermobility Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (hEDS). We assessed prevalence of positive HBTs in these groups, evaluated the predictive value of GI symptoms and the potential role of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on test results. Methods: Sequential patients referred for HBT to a tertiary unit were classified into the following groups: GI maldigestion/malabsorption, GI sensorimotor disorders, hEDS, and functional GI disorders. All underwent standardized HBT, and the yield was assessed against symptoms and PPI use. Key Results: A total of 1062 HBTs were performed over 3 years (70% female, mean age 48 ± 16 years). Overall, 7.5% (80/1062) patients had a positive HBT. Prevalence of positive HBT was highest in patients with GI maldigestion/malabsorption (17.9%; DOR 16.16, p < 0.001), GI sensorimotor disorders (15.9%; DOR 8.84, p < 0.001), compared to functional GI disorders (1.6%; DOR 1.0) (p < 0.0001). None of the hEDS patients tested positive for HBT. A positive HBT was independently associated with increased age (DOR 1.03; p < 0.001) and symptoms of diarrhea (DOR 3.95; p < 0.0001). Patients on PPIs tended towards a positive HBT than patients off PPIs (16.1% vs 6.9%; DOR 2.47; p < 0.0001). Conclusions & Inferences: Less than 2% of patients with functional GI disorders, and none of the patients with hEDS had a positive HBT. Pre‐test probability was higher in patients with: GI structural or neurological disorders; use of long‐term PPIs and symptoms of diarrhea. These criteria may be helpful in making appropriate therapeutic decisions and avoiding unnecessary hydrogen breath testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]