Search

Purpose: The anatomical location of inflammation in and around the ileal pouch affects the pouch survival rate, and diffuse inflammation has poor pouch survival rates. We aimed to clarify the symptoms and histological findings of diffuse inflammation of the pouch. Methods: We evaluated the symptoms, treatment, and histological findings according to the endoscopic phenotypes of diffuse inflammation, focal inflammation, and normal as the pouch body phenotype and afferent limb involvement, inlet involvement, cuffitis, and fistula as the peripheral findings. Results: Of the 318 pouchoscopies, 47 had diffuse inflammation, 201 had focal inflammation, and 70 were normal. Symptomatic patients had diffuse inflammation more frequently (46.8%) than focal inflammation (13.4%) and normal (14.2%), with no difference between focal inflammation and normal. Antibiotics and steroids were higher rate administered in cases of diffuse inflammation, but not in cases of focal inflammation or in normal cases. Histological inflammation, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–specific finding, and colonic metaplasia showed severity in the order of diffuse inflammation > focal inflammation > normal. The number of peripheral inflammatory findings overlapped in the following order: diffuse inflammation > focal inflammation > normal. The number of symptomatic patients increased as the number of peripheral inflammatory findings increased. Conclusion: Pouches with diffuse inflammation are more symptomatic, have a higher use of therapeutic agents, and have more severe histological inflammation, IBD-specific finding, and colonic metaplasia accompanying peripheral inflammatory findings than the other groups. The higher the overlap of inflammatory findings in the surrounding tissues, the more symptomatic the patients will appear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most frequently diagnosed esophageal motility abnormality and characterized by diminished esophageal peristaltic vigor and frequent weak, absent, and/or fragmented peristalsis on high‐resolution esophageal manometry. Despite its commonplace occurrence, this condition can often provoke uncertainty for both patients and clinicians. Although the diagnostic criteria used to define this condition has generally become more stringent over time, it is unclear whether the updated criteria result in a more precise clinical diagnosis. While IEM is often implicated with symptoms of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, the strength of these associations remains unclear. In this review, we share a practical approach to IEM highlighting its definition and evolution over time, commonly associated clinical symptoms, and important management and treatment considerations. We also share the significance of this condition in patients undergoing evaluation for anti‐reflux surgery and consideration for lung transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objective: Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is often associated with dysphagia and esophageal dysmotility (ED). However, ED in patients with MSA is poorly understood. To assess the relationship between ED, dysphagia, and other clinical findings in such patients and investigate the details of ED in MSA using high-resolution manometry (HRM). Methods: Patients from The University of Tokyo Hospital with MSA who underwent swallowing examinations, esophagography, and HRM between 2017 and 2022 were enrolled. A retrospective chart review of patients' backgrounds, swallowing function, and esophageal motility was performed. ED was evaluated using the Chicago Classification version 4.0. Results: Seventy-four patients with MSA were identified. The median age was 64 years, 48 patients (65%) were male, and the cerebellar variant type was predominant (69%). Abnormal upper esophageal sphincter (UES) resting pressure was observed in 34 patients (46%) and intraesophageal stasis in 65 (88%). High-severity MSA was a risk factor for developing dysphagia, vocal fold movement impairment, and abnormal UES function (p < 0.05). However, no overt clinical risk factors for ED were identified. Various types of ED were detected using HRM, and ineffective esophageal motility was the most frequent disorder. Conclusions: ED is a common occurrence in patients with MSA. Although a high-severity MSA may be a risk factor for developing dysphagia and vocal fold motion impairment, ED can occur regardless of clinical severity. Since ED is rarely detected based on subjective symptoms, careful evaluation of esophageal motility by esophagography or HRM is warranted in patients with MSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO), defined manometrically by impaired esophagogastric junction relaxation (EGJ) with preserved peristalsis, can be artifactual, due to secondary etiologies (mechanical, medication-induced), or a true motility disorder. The purpose of this review is to go over the evolving approach to diagnosing and treating clinically relevant EGJOO. Recent Findings: Timed barium esophagram (TBE) and the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) are useful to identify clinically relevant EGJOO that merits lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapies. There are no randomized controlled trials evaluating EJGOO treatment. Uncontrolled trials show effectiveness for pneumatic dilation and peroral endoscopic myotomy to treat confirmed EGJOO; Botox and Heller myotomy may also be considered but data for confirmed EGJOO is more limited. Summary: Diagnosis of clinically relevant idiopathic EGJOO requires symptoms, exclusion of mechanical and medication-related etiologies, and confirmation of EGJ obstruction by TBE or FLIP. Botox LES injection has limited durability, it can be used in patients who are not candidates for other treatments. PD and POEM are effective in confirmed EGJOO, Heller myotomy may also be considered but data for confirmed EGJOO is limited. Randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify optimal management of EGJOO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 4th iteration of the Chicago Classification (CC v4.0) for esophageal motility disorders offers more restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to version 3.0 (CC v3.0). In light of the updated criteria for IEM, we aimed to characterize and compare the patients who retained their IEM diagnosis to those who were reclassified as normal motility, and to evaluate the clinical impact of the newly introduced CC v4.0. We performed a retrospective case–control study. We included all individuals who underwent a high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2020 and 2021 at two centers. Consecutive studies reported as IEM according to the CC v3.0 were reanalyzed according to the CC v4.0. We compared demographics, clinical, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters. Out of 452 manometry studies, 154 (34%) met criteria for IEM as per the CC v3.0 (CC v3.0 IEM group). Of those, 39 (25%) studies were reclassified as normal studies according to the CC v4.0 (CC v4.0 normal group), while the remaining 115 studies (25% of the overall cohort) retained an IEM diagnosis (CC v4.0 IEM group). The CC v4.0 normal group had more recovered contractions during solid swallows (p = 0.01), less ineffective swallows (p = 0.04), and lower acid exposure time (p = 0.02) compared to the CC4.0 IEM group. Under CC v4.0 criteria, fewer patients are diagnosed with IEM. Those diagnosed with IEM had worse esophageal function and higher acid burden. Though further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results indicate that CC v4.0 criteria restrict the IEM diagnosis to a more clinically meaningful population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The Chicago Classification (CC) was developed as a robust framework to enable clinicians to better understand and classify the nature of motility disorders. Previous studies have primarily focused on the CC version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and data regarding the correlation between symptoms and CC version 4.0 (CCv4.0) in the Saudi Arabian population are lacking. This study aimed to assess the correlation between symptoms and CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) in Saudi Arabia, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both classifications. Methods: A total of 182 patients presenting with esophageal symptoms were included in this study. HRM was performed to assess esophageal motility, and patients' reported symptoms were recorded. The association between HRM findings and symptomatic variables was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Variability was observed in the diagnostic performance of symptomatic variables for major EMDs. CCv4.0 demonstrated a higher sensitivity for dysphagia than CCv3.0; however, it exhibited lower sensitivity to atypical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) exhibited the highest specificity and PPV, whereas typical GERD symptoms showed lower specificity. Conclusion: CCv4.0 demonstrated potential improvements in sensitivity for dysphagia, but lower sensitivity for atypical GERD symptoms, compared with CCv3.0. These insights provide guidance for clinicians in Saudi Arabia and contribute to understanding the diagnostic performance of CCv3.0 and CCv4.0.

Background: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The Chicago Classification (CC) was developed as a robust framework to enable clinicians to better understand and classify the nature of motility disorders. Previous studies have primarily focused on the CC version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and data regarding the correlation between symptoms and CC version 4.0 (CCv4.0) in the Saudi Arabian population are lacking. This study aimed to assess the correlation between symptoms and CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) in Saudi Arabia, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both classifications. Methods: A total of 182 patients presenting with esophageal symptoms were included in this study. HRM was performed to assess esophageal motility, and patients' reported symptoms were recorded. The association between HRM findings and symptomatic variables was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Variability was observed in the diagnostic performance of symptomatic variables for major EMDs. CCv4.0 demonstrated a higher sensitivity for dysphagia than CCv3.0; however, it exhibited lower sensitivity to atypical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) exhibited the highest specificity and PPV, whereas typical GERD symptoms showed lower specificity. Conclusion: CCv4.0 demonstrated potential improvements in sensitivity for dysphagia, but lower sensitivity for atypical GERD symptoms, compared with CCv3.0. These insights provide guidance for clinicians in Saudi Arabia and contribute to understanding the diagnostic performance of CCv3.0 and CCv4.0. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Background: The most recent update of the Chicago Classification (CCv4.0) attempts to provide a more clinically relevant definition for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). The impact of this new definition on predicting outcome after antireflux surgery is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare utility of IEM diagnosis based on CCv4.0 to CCv3.0 in predicting surgical outcome after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and to assess any additional parameters that hold value in future definitions. Methods: Records of 336 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed. Preoperative manometry files were re‐analyzed using both Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) and CCv4.0 definitions of IEM. The utility of each IEM definition in predicting surgical outcome was then compared. Individual manometric components and impedance data were also assessed. Key Results: Immediate dysphagia was reported by 186 (55.4%) and persistent dysphagia by 42 (12.5%) patients. CCv3.0 IEM criteria were met by 37 (11%) and CCv4.0 IEM by 18 (5.4%) patients (p = 0.011). CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 IEM were equally poor predictors of immediate (AUC = 0.503 vs. 0.512, p = 0.7482) and persistent (AUC = 0.519 vs. 0.510, p = 0.7544) dysphagia. The predicted dysphagia probability of less than 70% bolus clearance (BC) was 17.4%, higher than CCv4.0 IEM at 16.7%. When BC was incorporated into CCv4.0 IEM criteria, the probability increased significantly to 30.0% (p = 0.0042). Conclusions & Inferences: The CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 of IEM are poor predictors of dysphagia after MSA. Adding BC to the new definition improves its predictive utility and should be considered in future definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims We aim to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and differences between Chicago classification version 3.0 (CC v3.0) and 4.0 (CC v4.0). Methods Patients who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) for suspected esophageal motility disorders were prospectively recruited between May 2020 and February 2021. The protocol of HRM studies included additional positional change and provocative testing designed by CC v4.0. Results Two hundred forty-four patients were included. The median age was 59 (interquartile range, 45-66) years, and 46.7% were males. Of these, 53.3% (n = 130) and 61.9% (n = 151) were categorized as normalcy by CC v3.0 and CC v4.0, respectively. The 15 patients diagnosed of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) by CC v3.0 was changed to normalcy by position (n = 2) and symptom (n = 13) by CC v4.0. In seven patients, the ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) diagnosis by CC v3.0 was changed to normalcy by CC v4.0. The diagnostic rate of achalasia increased from 11.1% (n = 27) to 13.9% (n = 34) by CC v4.0. Of patients diagnosed IEM by CC v3.0, 4 was changed to achalasia based on the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) results by CC v4.0. Three patients (2 with absent contractility and 1 with IEM in CC v3.0) were newly diagnosed with achalasia using a provocative test and barium esophagography by CC v4.0. Conclusions CC v4.0 is more rigorous than CC v3.0 for the diagnosis of EGJOO and IEM and diagnoses achalasia more accurately by using provocative tests and FLIP. Further studies on the treatment outcomes following diagnosis with CC v4.0 are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Chicago classification primarily utilizes ten 5 mL liquid swallows in a supine position as the standard high‐resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) protocol. HRM can be performed with varying volumes and consistencies and in an upright position. We aimed to determine the impact on HRM results by (1) position, (2) swallows of differing volume and consistency, and (3) perception of bolus passage. Methods: HRM was performed in healthy volunteers (HV) with the following protocol of swallows: liquids 10 × 5 mL, 5 × 10 mL, and 3 × 10 mL multiple rapid swallows; applesauce 5 × 5 mL and 5 × 10 mL; and bread 5 × 2 × 2 cm and 5 × 4 × 4cm. HV rated difficulty of each swallow on a 5‐point Likert scale. All HVs performed the protocol in supine position first and then in "semi‐upright" (sitting 70 degrees in a bed) and "upright" (sitting in a chair) in a randomized order. Key Results: Thirty‐seven HVs, median age 27 years, 64% female completed this study. Median distal contractile integral (DCI) and integrated relaxation pressure 4 s (IRP4) of 5 mL liquid swallows significantly differed (all p < 0.01) between position performed. Large volume swallows resulted in higher DCI and lower IRP4. IRP4 results were significantly increased for 2 × 2 cm pieces of bread compared to 5 mL water swallows. DCI results were higher for 2 × 2 cm pieces of bread compared to 5 mL water swallows. Distal latency was shorter in more upright positions. Among this cohort of HV, perceived difficulty of bolus passage was more likely to occur with solid boluses. Conclusions and Inferences: The volume and consistency of a swallow and the position it is performed in, significantly alter HRM metrics. Interpretation of HRM studies should incorporate different normative values which are specific to the position and bolus type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Panesophageal pressurization (PEP) defines type II achalasia on high‐resolution‐manometry (HRM) but some patients exhibit spasm after treatment. The Chicago Classification (CC) v4.0 proposed high PEP values as predictor of embedded spasm, yet supportive evidence is lacking. Methods: Fifty seven type II achalasia patients (47 ± 18 years, 54% males) with HRM and LIP Panometry before and after treatment were retrospectively identified. Baseline HRM and FLIP studies were analyzed to identify factors associated with post‐treatment spasm, defined on HRM per CC v4.0. Results: Seven patients (12%) had spasm following treatment (peroral endoscopic myotomy 47%; pneumatic dilation [PD] 37%; laparoscopic Heller myotomy 16%). At baseline, greater median maximum PEP pressure (MaxPEP) values on HRM (77 vs 55 mmHg, p = 0.045) and spastic‐reactive contractile response pattern on FLIP (43% vs 8%, p = 0.033) were more common in patients with post‐treatment spasm while absent contractile response on FLIP was more common in patients without spasm (14% vs 66%, p = 0.014). The strongest predictor of post‐treatment spasm was the percentage of swallows with MaxPEP ≥70 mmHg (best cut‐off: ≥30%), with AUROC of 0.78. A combination of MaxPEP <70 mmHg and FLIP 60 mL pressure < 40 mmHg identified patients with lower rates of post‐treatment spasm (3% overall, 0% post‐PD) compared to those with values above these thresholds (33% overall, 83% post‐PD). Conclusions: High maximum PEP values, high FLIP 60 mL pressures and contractile response pattern on FLIP Panometry prior to treatment identified type II achalasia patients more likely to exhibit post‐treatment spasm. Evaluating these features may guide personalized patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) utilizes sufficient pressure sensors such that intraluminal pressure is monitored as a continuum along luminal length, similar to time viewed as a continuum on polygraph tracings in 'conventional' manometry. When HRM is coupled with pressure topography plotting, and pressure amplitude is transformed into spectral colors with isobaric areas indicated by same-colored regions, "Clouse plots" are generated. HRM has several advantages compared to the technology that it replaced: (1) the contractility of the entire esophagus can be viewed simultaneously in a uniform standardized format, (2) standardized objective metrics of peristaltic and sphincter function can be systematically applied for interpretation, and (3) topographic patterns of contractility are more easily recognized with greater reproducibility. Leveraging these advantages led to the current standard for the interpretation of clinical esophageal HRM studies, the Chicago Classification (CC), now in its fourth iteration. Compared to conventional manometry, HRM has vastly improved the sensitivity for detecting achalasia, largely due to the objectivity and accuracy of identification of impaired esophagogastric junction (EGJ) relaxation. Additionally, it has led to the subcategorization of achalasia into three clinically relevant subtypes, differentiated by the contractile function of the esophageal body, and identified an additional disorder of EGJ outflow obstruction wherein esophageal peristalsis is preserved. Headway has also been made in understanding hypocontractile and hypercontractile conditions. In summary, HRM and the CC process have revolutionized our understanding of esophageal motility and motility disorders. Moving forward, there will always be remaining challenges, but we now have the tools to meet them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management.

This article discusses a study that compares the effectiveness of barium esophagram (BE) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) in detecting residual peristalsis and correlating with patient-reported dysphagia. The study suggests that BE may be more accurate in detecting residual peristalsis and correlating with patient-reported dysphagia compared to HRM. The study has some limitations, including a small sample size and retrospective design, but the authors recommend further studies with larger sample sizes to validate the findings. The authors declare no competing interests. [Extracted from the article]

The efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia has potential associations with Chicago classification by high-resolution manometry (HRM). Type II achalasia demonstrates the best response to POEM of all subtypes, while there remain controversies between type I and type III. Moreover, previous treatment history might cause discrepancy in direct comparison. We aimed to compare the clinical outcome of POEM for type I vs type III in treatment-naive patients. In total, 82 patients with type I or type III achalasia (45 type I, 37 type III) from February 2015 to December 2018 were enrolled and POEM was carried out as the initial treatment. Clinical success, change of Eckardt scores and HRM parameters were analyzed and compared between type I and type III group. About, 43 (95.6%) patients and 34 (91.9%) patients in type I and type III group acquired the clinical success (P  = 0.821). Eckardt score and HRM results after POEM treatment decreased significantly in either group (P <0.01). Compared to type III group, higher reduction rates of Eckardt score (type I vs type III, 78.6 vs 66.9%, P  = 0.034) and basal LES pressure (type I vs type III, 58.9 vs 40.4%, P  = 0.040) were observed in type I group. Type I achalasia patients showed better response to POEM with more favorable clinical remission in Eckardt score and HRM outcomes than type III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Esophageal dysmotility has been attributed to opioid use. The goal was to assess the differences in pre- and post-treatment timed-barium esophagram (TBE) barium heights at 1 and 5 minutes and symptomatic response to treatment in esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) patients according to opioid use status. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with EGJOO were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected on demographics, pre and post-treatment 1 and 5 minutes TBE barium heights and symptom outcomes. Groups were compared according to opioid use. Results: Thirty-one EGJOO patients met the inclusion criteria. All patients were treated with pneumatic dilation. Of the 31 patients, 11 (35%) had opioid exposure and 20 (65%) did not. The median follow-up post-treatment was two months (range 1–47 months). There was no statistically significant difference in post-treatment outcomes for opioid exposed vs. unexposed groups. The median per cent decrease in the TBE barium height at 1 minute was 100% for the opioid exposed vs. 71% for the unexposed group (p = 0.92). The median per cent decrease in the TBE barium height at 5 minutes was zero % for the opioid exposed and unexposed groups (p = 0.67). The incidence of symptomatic improvement was 82% (9/11) for the opioid exposed group vs 95% (19/20) for the unexposed group (p = 0.28). Conclusions: Patients with EGJOO seem to respond to treatment similarly regardless of being on opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Chicago Classification is being revised continuously for the accurate diagnosis of esophageal peristaltic disorders in which the etiology is unclear, and the disease behavior is heterogeneous. The ver. 4.0 was recently updated. A representative change in the diagnosis of esophageal peristaltic disorders of the ver. 4.0 showed that the distinction between major and minor disorders was eliminated and was divided into the following four diagnoses: absent contractility, distal esophageal spasm (DES), hypercontractile esophagus (HE), and ineffective esophageal motility. Compared to the ver. 3.0, it recommended a more detailed protocol of high-resolution esophageal manometry and methods of interpreting manometric. In addition, it emphasized the clinically relevant symptoms in diagnosing DES and HE, and presented provocative tests (e.g., multiple rapid swallow and rapid drinking challenge), as well as additional testing, including impedance, timed barium esophagogram and functional lumen imaging probe, which may provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for peristaltic patterns and to minimize the ambiguity in diagnosis. Although it will take time and effort to apply this revised Chicago Classification in clinical practice, it may help diagnose and manage patients with esophageal peristalsis disorder in the future.

Background & Aims: High-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) is the gold standard procedure used for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders (EMD). Artificial intelligence (AI) might provide an efficient solution for the automatic diagnosis of EMD by improving the subjective interpretation of HREM images. The aim of our study was to develop an AI-based system, using neural networks, for the automatic diagnosis of HREM images, based on one wet swallow raw image. Methods: In the first phase of the study, the manometry recordings of our patients were retrospectively analyzed by three experienced gastroenterologists, to verify and confirm the correct diagnosis. In the second phase of the study raw images were used to train an artificial neural network. We selected only those tracings with ten test swallows that were available for analysis, including a total of 1570 images. We had 10 diagnosis categories, as follows: normal, type I achalasia, type II achalasia, type III achalasia, esophago-gastric junction outflow obstruction, jackhammer oesophagus, absent contractility, distal esophageal spasm, ineffective esophageal motility, and fragmented peristalsis, based on Chicago classification v3.0 for EMDs. Results: The raw images were cropped, binarized, and automatically divided in 3 parts: training, testing, validation. We used Inception V3 CNN model, pre-trained on ImageNet. We developed a custom classification layer, that allowed the CNN to classify each wet swallow image from the HREM system into one of the diagnosis categories mentioned above. Our algorithm was highly accurate, with an overall precision of more than 93%. Conclusion: Our neural network approach using HREM images resulted in a high accuracy automatic diagnosis of EMDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Spectrum of esophageal motility disorders may differ according to age, but studies on this are scanty, contradictory, and included small number of patients. Accordingly, we retrospectively analyzed data of a large sample of patients to study the spectrum of esophageal motility disorders in relation to age, and to evaluate the clinical profile and high-resolution manometry parameters and achalasia subtypes according to Chicago IV criteria., Methods: Of 909 patients evaluated by high-resolution water perfusion or solid-state manometry during a 3-year period, data on 801 were finally analyzed., Results: Achalasia cardia was the commonest motility disorder of esophagus in this large study and type II was the commonest subtype. There was no difference in clinical and manometry parameters among elderly patients as compared to younger patients with achalasia. Type I achalasia patients less often had chest pain and tended to have nocturnal coughing spells more often, and patients with achalasia experiencing chest pain tended to have higher distal contractile integral (DCI) than those not having pain irrespective of age., Conclusion: The clinical and high-resolution manometry parameters among young and elderly patients with esophageal motility disorders are quite comparable. However, these differed in relation to achalasia subtypes and symptoms. Type I achalasia patients less often had chest pain and those experiencing chest pain tended to have higher DCI values than those not having pain irrespective of age., (© 2024 The Author(s). JGH Open published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) form a significant part of a busy endoscopist's practice. Endoscopy plays an all-encompassing role in the diagnosis and management of EMDs including achalasia cardia. The focus on in-vogue third-space endoscopic procedures such as per-oral endoscopic myotomy often digresses the important role of endoscopy. Endoscopic evaluation forms the part of standard first-line evaluation of any dysphagia and serves to rule out a secondary cause such as an esophagogastric junction malignancy and eosinophilic esophagitis. Moreover, endoscopic evaluation may itself provide corroborative evidence that may contribute to the diagnosis of the motility disorder. Achalasia cardia may present with a wide spectrum of endoscopic findings from being entirely normal and the well-known and pathognomonic dilated sigmoid-shaped esophagus with food residue, to lesser-known ornate signs. The evidence on the role of endosonography in EMDs is conflicting and largely restricted to evaluation of pseudoachalasia. High-resolution manometry (HRM) remains the gold standard in the diagnosis of EMDs. Endoscopists must also keep abreast of the latest iteration of the Chicago classification version 4.0, which differs significantly from its predecessor in being more stringent in making diagnosis of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction and disorders of peristalsis since these manometric findings may be seen in normal individuals and may be mimicked by opioid use and gastroesophageal reflux. The latest rendition also includes the use of provocative maneuvers and testing in both supine and sitting posture. Despite being the gold standard, there are certain lacunae in the use and interpretation of the Chicago classification of which the users should be well aware. Emerging technologies such as functional lumen imaging probe and planimetry, and timed barium esophagogram fill the lacuna in diagnosis of these motility disorders, which at times is beyond the resolution of HRM.

Summary: Background: Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) introduced stringent diagnostic criteria for oesophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO), in order to increase the clinical relevance of the diagnosis, although this has not yet been demonstrated. Aims: To determine the prevalence of EGJOO using CCv4.0 criteria in patients with CCv3.0‐based EGJOO, and to assess if provocative manoeuvres can predict a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis of EGJOO. Methods: Clinical presentation, high resolution manometry (HRM) with rapid drink challenge (RDC), and timed barium oesophagogram (TBE) data were extracted for patients diagnosed with EGJOO as per CCv3.0 between 2018 and 2020. Patients were then re‐classified according to CCv4.0 criteria, using clinically relevant symptoms (dysphagia and/or chest pain), and abnormal barium emptying at 5 min on TBE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses identified HRM predictors of EGJOO. Results: Of 2010 HRM studies, 144 (7.2%) fulfilled CCv3.0 criteria for EGJOO (median age 61 years, 56.9% female). Upon applying CCv4.0 criteria, EGJOO prevalence decreased to 1.2%. On ROC analysis, integrated relaxation pressure during RDC (RDC‐IRP) was a significant predictor of a conclusive EGJOO diagnosis by CCv4.0 criteria (area under the curve: 96.1%). The optimal RDC‐IRP threshold of 16.7 mm Hg had 87% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 95.7% negative predictive value and 91.3% positive predictive value for a conclusive EGJOO diagnosis; lower thresholds (10 mmHg, 12 mmHg) had better sensitivity but lower specificity. Conclusion: CCv4.0 criteria reduced the prevalence of EGJOO by 80%, thereby refining the diagnosis and identifying clinically relevant outflow obstruction. Elevated RDC‐IRP can predict conclusive EGJOO per CCv4.0. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS) proposed quality measures (QMs) for performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry (EM). We implemented a quality improvement (QI) study at a large community hospital to assess and improve procedural adherence and interpretation of EM studies based on the ANMS QMs using the Chicago Classification 3.0 (CC) Guidelines. For pre-intervention, three motility independent reviewers reinterpreted 60 EM studies conducted by community gastroenterologists without Tier II–III motility training from October to December 2018 for compliance with pre-procedural, procedural, and data interpretation ANMS QMs. In December 2018, we developed a pre-procedural form, educated nurses on EM procedural compliance, and provided preliminary pre-intervention results to gastroenterologists along with literature utilizing the CC 3.0 Guidelines. For post-intervention, we reinterpreted 54 EM studies from January to August 2019 and investigated whether they met QMs for data interpretation with respect to the CC Guidelines and resulted in appropriate treatment. We found a statistically significant improvement in procedural compliance among nursing staff for 30 s of swallows (76% post-intervention versus 12% pre-intervention, p < 0.001) and 7 evaluable swallows (94% post-intervention versus 53% pre-intervention, p < 0.001). However, quality metrics within data interpretation by physicians post-intervention showed mixed results. An incorrect diagnosis was made in 50% (n = 27)) of studies with 72% (n = 39) having at least one missing item based on the CC. The most missed diagnosis was fragmented peristalsis (30%, n = 29). Among the 39% (n = 21) of surgery referrals, 24% (n = 5) were incorrectly referred. Our study shows poor data interpretation by community gastroenterologists without formal motility training despite adequate performance by nursing staff. This further supports the need for a national ANMS certification process for formal HRM education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this paper is to provide a Machine Learning-based solution that can be utilized to automate the Chicago Classification algorithm, the state-of-the-art scheme for esophageal motility disease identification. First, the photos were preprocessed by locating the area of interest—the precise instant of swallowing. After resizing and rescaling the photos, they were utilized as input for the Deep Learning models. The InceptionV3 Deep Learning model was used to identify the precise class of the IRP. We used the DenseNet201 CNN architecture to classify the images into 5 different classes of swallowing disorders. Finally, we combined the results of the two trained ML models to automate the Chicago Classification algorithm. With this solution we obtained a top-1 accuracy and f1-score of 86% with no human intervention, automating the whole flow, from image preprocessing until Chicago classification and diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-Resolution Manometry (HRM) with provocative maneuvers, such as Multiple Rapid Swallows (MRS) and Apple Viscous Swallows (AVS), is commonly utilized to diagnose esophageal disorders. Increasing standardization in HRM protocol can help save time and reduce patient discomfort. This study assesses AVS and MRS to determine their respective benefits and limitations. Methods: Retrospective reviews were performed on 100 patients to analyze their AVS and/or MRS results. Parameters included abnormal motility patterns, tolerance, and DCI. Diagnostic benefits from MRS and AVS were assessed. Based on the previous studies, additional benefit from MRS was defined as detection of good peristaltic reserve, weak peristaltic reserve, or an abnormal motility/pressurization pattern. Additional benefit from AVS was defined as detection of IEM features or abnormal motility/pressurization pattern. Results: When patients completed both MRS and AVS (n = 70), MRS provided additional benefit in assessing 36% of patients, while AVS provided additional benefit in 19% of patients (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, MRS detected significantly more abnormal motility/pressurization patterns than AVS (27% MRS; 8% AVS; p = 0.0005). Two unique strengths of AVS were higher tolerance for test completion (p = 0.009) and better detection of severe hypokinetic disorders in 4% of patients, which were missed by MRS. Conclusions: MRS may uniquely identify abnormal motility/pressurization patterns, such as paradoxical LES response, distal pressurization, hypercontractile, and spasm patterns. These findings argue for a tailored approach when selecting provocative testing. MRS may be more useful for patients with abnormal pathophysiology, while AVS may help to supplement MRS in detecting severe hypokinetic disorders in preoperative management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé: La classification de Chicago a été établie en 2008 pour définir les troubles moteurs œsophagiens en manométrie de haute résolution. La version 4.0, publiée en 2021, propose l'utilisation d'un protocole standardisé avec réalisation de déglutitions en positions allongée et assise et de tests de provocation (déglutitions répétées, déglutitions rapides, ingestion de solides). Deux catégories de troubles moteurs sont identifiées, les troubles de la relaxation de la jonction œsogastrique (JOG) et les désordres péristaltiques. Par rapport à la version précédente, les principales modifications concernent les définitions de l'achalasie de type III, du défaut de relaxation de la JOG et du syndrome de motricité inefficace. Pour le diagnostic d'achalasie de type III, en plus de l'élévation de la pression de relaxation intégrée (PRI), il faut au moins 20 % de contractions prématurées (avec uniquement des contractions absentes ou prématurées). Le diagnostic de défaut de relaxation de la JOG repose sur une PRI élevée pour les déglutitions réalisées en position allongée et en position assise, et doit être confirmé par un transit œso-gastro-duodénal minuté et/ou par une mesure de la distensibilité de la JOG par planimétrie par impédance. Le syndrome de motricité inefficace est défini par plus de 70 % de contractions inefficaces ou au moins 50 % de contractions absentes dans un contexte de relaxation normale de la JOG. The Chicago classification is the classification of esophageal motility disorders with high-resolution manometry. The version 4.0 published in 2021 recommends to use a standardized protocol with swallows in both supine and sitting positions, and challenge tests (multiple rapid swallows, rapid drink challenge, solid swallows). Motility disorders are categorized into two groups: esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) relaxation disorders and peristaltic disorders. Compared to the previous version, the main changes concern type III achalasia, EGJ outflow obstruction and ineffective esophageal motility. To diagnose type III achalasia 100% of absent or premature contractions (with at least 20% of premature contractions) are required in association with elevated integrated relaxation pressure (IRP). The diagnosis of EGJ outflow obstruction requires an elevated IRP in both supine and sitting positions and should be confirmed with timed barium swallow or measurement of EGJ distensibility with impedance planimetry. Ineffective esophageal motility is defined by more than 70% of ineffective contractions or at least 50% of absent contractions in a context of normal EGJ relaxation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Esophageal motility disorders account for a large proportion of nonobstructive dysphagia cases, which constitute a heterogeneous group of diagnoses that commonly result in peristaltic derangement and impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. We performed a single-institution retrospective study enrolling consecutive patients with chief complaints of dysphagia who underwent HRIM from December 2014 to December 2019, and analyzed demographic, clinical, and manometric data using descriptive statistics. In total, 277 identified patients were included in the final analysis. Ineffective esophageal motility (n = 152, 24.5%) was the most common diagnosis by HRIM, followed by absent contractility, EGJ outflow obstruction, type II achalasia, and type I achalasia. Furthermore, surgery including exploratory, laparoscopic, and robotic myotomy, as well as POEM, is considered the most effective treatment for patients with non-spastic achalasia and EGJOO, due to its effective symptom palliation and prevention of disease progression; surgery also contributes to an obvious improvement of dysphagia compared with slightly less efficacy for other related symptoms. Our study aimed to elaborate the clinical characteristics of patients with nonobstructive dysphagia based on HRIM in a Taiwanese population, and to analyze the therapeutic outcomes of such patients who ultimately underwent surgical interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achalasia is an incurable condition of the esophagus involving the inflammation and degeneration of inhibitory neurons of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resulting in failure of the LES to relax. Typical symptoms of achalasia are dysphagia, retrosternal chest pain, regurgitation, and weight loss. Three studies are typically required for the diagnosis of achalasia: barium swallow, high-resolution esophageal manometry, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Differential diagnosis includes gastroesophageal reflux disease, pseudoachalasia, neoplasm, and nonachalasia esophageal motility disorders such as scleroderma, jackhammer esophagus, distal esophageal spasm, and nutcracker esophagus., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr C.G. Provenza has no disclosures to report. Dr J.R. Romanelli is a proctor for Erbe USA and in so doing teaches the POEM procedure, which is relevant to this study, but it did not contribute to the creation of this study. He also consults for New View Surgical but this is not relevant to this study., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: High-resolution manometry (HRM) provides measures of esophageal function which are used to classify esophageal motility disorders based on the Chicago Classification system. Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) measures are obtained from HRM, but are not included in the classification system, rendering the relationship between UES measures and esophageal motility disorders unclear. Furthermore, changes in the acceptable amount of esophageal dysfunction between versions of this classification system has created controversy. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between UES measures and esophageal function., Study Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Referral centre., Methods: HRM studies from the Calgary Gut Motility Center were reviewed for UES mean basal pressure, mean residual pressure, relaxation time-to-nadir, relaxation duration, and recovery time. Patients were grouped by number of failed swallows according to different iterations of the Chicago Classification: 0 to 4 (Group 1), 5 to 7 (Group 2), and 8 to 10 (Group 3)., Results: 2114 patients (65.1% female, median age 56 y) were included. There were significant increases in UES mean basal pressure (P < .001), mean residual pressure (P < .001), relaxation duration (P < .001), and recovery time (P < .001) between groups. Positive correlations existed between number of failed swallows and UES mean basal pressure (r = 0.143; P < .001), mean residual pressure (r = 0.201; P < .001), relaxation duration (r = 0.145; P < .001), and recovery time (r = 0.168; P < .001)., Conclusions: Differences in UES measures exist among patients with failed swallows, with a positive correlation between UES dysfunction and increasing dysmotility. Our findings illustrate that UES measures are closely related to esophageal function, and that even minor esophageal dysfunction is related to UES dysfunction., (© 2024 The Author(s). Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

High-resolution manometry permitted the creation of the Chicago classification, that is the categorization for esophageal motility disorders most currently used. Despite its wide acceptance, there are few pitfalls for the correct interpretation of the tests. This technique review illustrates some difficult cases that may lead to misinterpretation of the results. Difficult cases are analyzed, such as the distinction of: (1) esophagogastric junction morphology and lower esophageal sphincter excursion, (2) intrabolus pressure pattern or common cavity, (3) hypercontractile esophagus (jackhammer) and achalasia type III, (4) absent contractility and severe ineffective esophageal motility or achalasia type I, and (5) simultaneous distal esophageal spasm and ineffective esophageal motility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an innovative antireflux procedure that can improve lower esophageal sphincter (LES) competency and reduce symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Some patients report postoperative dysphagia. To date, no studies have described reference high‐resolution manometry (HRM) values after MSA implantation. Methods: High‐resolution manometry was performed in patients free of dysphagia after MSA with or without concurrent crura repair. Reference values for all parameters of the Chicago Classification were defined as those between the 5th and 95th percentiles. The contribution of concurrent crura repair to LES competency and to reference values was also analyzed. Key Results: Eighty‐four patients met the study inclusion criteria. The upper limit of normality for integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) and intrabolus pressure (IBP) was 20.2 mmHg and 30.3 mmHg, respectively. Both variables were higher after MSA compared to normative Chicago Classification v3.0 values. The Distal Contractile Integral upper limit was in the range of normality. Patients undergoing crura repair had a significantly higher IRP (p = 0.0378) and lower GERDQ‐A scores (p = 0.0374) and Reflux Symptom Index (p = 0.0030) compared to those who underwent MSA device implantation alone. Conclusion & Inferences: This study provides HRM reference values for patients undergoing successful MSA implantation. Crural repair appears to be a key component of LES augmentation and is associated with improved clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) form a significant part of a busy endoscopist's practice. Endoscopy plays an all-encompassing role in the diagnosis and management of EMDs including achalasia cardia. The focus on in-vogue third-space endoscopic procedures such as per-oral endoscopic myotomy often digresses the important role of endoscopy. Endoscopic evaluation forms the part of standard first-line evaluation of any dysphagia and serves to rule out a secondary cause such as an esophagogastric junction malignancy and eosinophilic esophagitis. Moreover, endoscopic evaluation may itself provide corroborative evidence that may contribute to the diagnosis of the motility disorder. Achalasia cardia may present with a wide spectrum of endoscopic findings from being entirely normal and the well-known and pathognomonic dilated sigmoid-shaped esophagus with food residue, to lesser-known ornate signs. The evidence on the role of endosonography in EMDs is conflicting and largely restricted to evaluation of pseudoachalasia. High-resolution manometry (HRM) remains the gold standard in the diagnosis of EMDs. Endoscopists must also keep abreast of the latest iteration of the Chicago classification version 4.0, which differs significantly from its predecessor in being more stringent in making diagnosis of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction and disorders of peristalsis since these manometric findings may be seen in normal individuals and may be mimicked by opioid use and gastroesophageal reflux. The latest rendition also includes the use of provocative maneuvers and testing in both supine and sitting posture. Despite being the gold standard, there are certain lacunae in the use and interpretation of the Chicago classification of which the users should be well aware. Emerging technologies such as functional lumen imaging probe and planimetry, and timed barium esophagogram fill the lacuna in diagnosis of these motility disorders, which at times is beyond the resolution of HRM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-resolution manometry (HRM) has revolutionized esophageal motility testing, and the evolving Chicago Classification has been critical in codifying HRM metrics and definitions of old and new motility disorders. The latest Chicago Classification (version 4.0) is the result of a working group of 52 members (10 women) from 20 countries. Two critical new elements are the expansion of the normal database from 75 to 469 healthy volunteers and the recommendation of ancillary function tests (timed barium esophagram, functional lumen imaging planimetry, and/or impedance) to help with inconclusive HRM metrics, especially in cases of suspected achalasia, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO), and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). Important changes relevant to clinical practice include (1) refinement of the diagnosis criteria for EGJOO, which now require elevated integrated relaxation pressure in an upright position along with primary symptoms of dysphagia/noncardiac chest pain and obstruction at the esophagogastric junction; (2) exclusion of mechanical obstruction in cases of suspected distal esophageal spasm and hypercontractile esophagus; and (3) a shift to a more restrictive metric (>70% ineffective peristalsis) for a diagnosis of IEM. In addition, the working group urged caution in using treatments such as pneumatic dilation or myotomy, which can irreversibly destroy lower esophageal sphincter competency and peristalsis, as the natural history of EGJOO/hypercontractile esophagus is poorly understood and spontaneous symptom resolution is common. Future versions should address the routine use of impedance with HRM, the role of HRM in pharyngeal/upper esophageal sphincter diseases, and the need for better criteria to determine which subsets of spastic disorders warrant aggressive treatment, as is done with achalasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recommended diagnostic criteria for achalasia have been recently updated by Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), the widely accepted classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). CCv4.0 continued upon prior versions by subtyping achalasia into type I, type II, and type III on HRM. The achalasia subgroup of the CCv4.0 Working Group developed both conclusive and inconclusive statements for the HRM diagnoses of achalasia subtypes. Conclusive achalasia on HRM is defined as an abnormal median integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) in the primary position of wet swallows along with 100% failed peristalsis, with type I achalasia having 100% failed peristalsis without panesophageal pressurization (PEP), type II achalasia with PEP in at least 20% of swallows, and type III achalasia having at least 20% of swallows premature with no appreciable peristalsis. An inconclusive HRM diagnosis of achalasia can arise when there is an integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) that is borderline or at the upper limit of normal in at least one position, there is an abnormal IRP in both positions but evidence of peristalsis with PEP or premature swallows, or there is peristalsis in the secondary position after apparent achalasia in the primary position. In patients with dysphagia and an inconclusive HRM diagnosis of achalasia, supportive testing beyond HRM such as a timed barium esophagram (TBE) for functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) is recommended. The review recommends a diagnostic algorithm for achalasia, discusses therapeutic options for the disease, and outlines future needs on this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The first aim of this study was to elucidate the detection rate of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients complaining of dysphagia with esophageal motility disorders; the second was to clarify the useful parameters of EGD associated with esophageal motility disorders. Methods: Participants included 380 patients who underwent EGD before high‐resolution manometry (HRM) for dysphagia. EGD findings were investigated according to the following five parameters: resistance when passing through the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), residue in the esophageal lumen, esophageal dilation, and spastic and nonocclusive contractions. HRM diagnoses were based on the Chicago classification (v3.0). Results: The percentage of abnormal EGD findings was 64.4% among patients with esophageal motility disorders, and the results differed for each esophageal motility disorder. The rate of abnormal EGD for both EGJ outflow obstruction and major disorders of peristalsis was significantly higher than that for manometrically normal subjects. On multivariate analysis, resistance when passing through EGJ, residue in the esophageal lumen, spastic and nonocclusive contraction were significantly associated with esophageal motility disorders. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of these parameters for detection of esophageal motility disorders were 75.1%, 86.6%, 84.8% and 77.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction and major disorders of peristalsis can be screened with EGD. Among several endoscopic parameters, resistance when passing through EGJ, residue in the esophageal lumen, spastic and nonocclusive contraction are considered significantly useful indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this paper is to provide a Machine Learning-based solution that can be utilized to automate the Chicago Classification algorithm, the state-of-the-art scheme for esophageal motility disease identification. First, the photos were preprocessed by locating the area of interest—the precise instant of swallowing. After resizing and rescaling the photos, they were utilized as input for the Deep Learning models. The InceptionV3 Deep Learning model was used to identify the precise class of the IRP. We used the DenseNet201 CNN architecture to classify the images into 5 different classes of swallowing disorders. Finally, we combined the results of the two trained ML models to automate the Chicago Classification algorithm. With this solution we obtained a top-1 accuracy and f1-score of 86% with no human intervention, automating the whole flow, from image preprocessing until Chicago classification and diagnosis.

Hypercontractile esophagus (HE), defined by the Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) as 20% or more hypercontractile peristalsis (Distal Contractile Integral >8000 mmHg·s·cm) on high‐resolution manometry (HRM), is a heterogeneous disorder with variable clinical presentations and natural course, leading to management challenges. An update on the diagnostic criteria for clinically relevant HE was needed. Literature on HE was extensively reviewed by the HE subgroup of the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) Working Group and statements relating to the diagnosis of HE were ranked according to the RAND UCLA Appropriateness methodology by the Working Group, and the quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. An overall emphasis of the CCv4.0 is on clinically relevant esophageal dysmotility, and thus it is recommended that an HE diagnosis requires both conclusive manometric diagnosis and clinically relevant symptoms of dysphagia and non‐cardiac chest pain. The Working Group also recognized the subtypes of HE, including single‐peaked, multi‐peaked contractions (Jackhammer esophagus), and hypercontractile lower esophageal sphincter. However, there are no compelling data currently for formally subdividing HE to these subgroups in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) is currently diagnosed according to the Chicago Classification V3 by an elevated median integrated relaxation pressure on high resolution manometry. However, EGJOO may not be an accurate diagnosis, as it may be based on abnormal IRP from an artifact, affected by narcotics, an achalasia variant, or a mechanical cause of obstruction. This heterogenous diagnosis can often lead to unnecessary testing and treatment. The purpose of this study is to develop a stepwise clinical management protocol on how to evaluate EGJOO. Motility studies were reviewed for the last 2 years and 39 patients were diagnosed with EGJOO. Clinical information was reviewed, and patients were classified into six stepwise categories to explain an elevated IRP resulting in EGJOO diagnosis: (1) underlying catheter artifact (2) opioid use (3) achalasia variant (4) jackhammer esophagus with obstruction (5) missed esophageal lesion (ex. Schatzki ring, EOE) and (6) extrinsic compression. 40% (n = 14) of patients with elevated IRP were due to an underlying catheter artifact. 8.6% (n = 3) were due to opioid use. 8.6% (n = 3) were due to achalasia variant. 31.4% (n = 11) were due to jackhammer esophagus with obstruction. 5.7% (n = 2) were due to missed esophageal lesion. 5.7% (n = 2) were due to external compression by cardiomegaly and aortic aneurism. EGJOO is not a diagnostic end point, but a heterogenous category with multiple underlying etiologies. We believe the use of a stepwise approach to these patients can help avoid further unnecessary testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Variations in the Chicago 3.0 normative metrics may exist with different postures and with different provocative swallow materials in a healthy Asian population. Method: Eligible healthy Malay volunteers were invited to undergo the high‐resolution esophageal manometry (inSIGHT Ultima, Diversatek Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA). In recumbent and standing positions, test swallows were performed using liquid, viscous, and solid materials. Metrics including integrated relaxation pressure 4 s (IRP‐4 s, mmHg), distal contractile integral (DCI, mmHg s cm), distal latency (DL, s), and peristaltic break (PB, cm) were reported in median and 95th percentile. Results: Fifty of 57 screened participants were recruited, and 586 saline, 265 viscous, and 261 solid swallows were analyzed. Per‐patient wise, in the recumbent position, 95th percentile for IRP‐4 s, DCI, DL, and PB were 16.5 mmHg, 2431 mmHg s cm, 8.5 s, and 7.2 cm, respectively. We observed that with each posture, the use of viscous swallows led to changes in DL, but the use of solid swallows led to more changes in the metrics including DCI and length of PB. Compared with a recumbent posture, anupright posture led to lower IRP‐4 s and DCI values. Both per‐patient analysis and per‐swallow analyses yielded almost similar results when comparing the different postures and types of swallows. No major motility disorders were observed in this cohort of asymptomatic population. However, more motility disorders were reported in the upright position. Conclusions: Variations in metrics can be observed in different postures and with different provocative swallow materials in a healthy population. The normative Chicago 3.0 metrics are also determined for the Malay population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]