Carlson, Dustin A.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the established efficacy of achalasia treatments on symptomatic outcomes, there are limited data evaluating the treatment effect on esophageal dilatation. This study aimed to assess the effect achalasia treatment on esophageal dilatation and the effect of esophageal width reduction (“recoil”) on clinical outcomes.MethodsPatients with type I or type II achalasia that completed high‐resolution manometry (HRM), functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP), and timed barium esophagram (TBE) pre and post treatment were included. Esophageal width was measured using TBE. Focused subgroup analysis was performed on patients with normal posttreatment EGJ opening on FLIP. Good clinical outcomes were defined as barium column height of <5 cm at 5 min and Eckardt Score ≤3.Key ResultsSixty‐nine patients (41% type I and 59% type II) were included. Esophageal width decreased from pre to post treatment mean (SD) 4.2 (1.3) cm–2.8 (1.2) cm; p < 0.01. In the normal post treatment EGJ opening subgroup, esophageal width was less in patients with good TBE outcome compared to poor outcome mean (SD) 2.2 (0.7) cm versus 3.2 (1.4) cm (p < 0.01), but did not differ in good versus poor symptomatic outcome groups. Esophageal width recoil >25% posttreatment was associated with a greater rate of good TBE outcome (71% vs. 50%, p = 0.04) and good symptomatic outcome (88% vs. 50%; p = 0.04).Conclusions and InferencesEsophageal recoil was associated with good achalasia treatment outcome in patients without posttreatment EGJ obstruction. This suggests that mechanical properties of the esophageal wall, likely associated with tissue remodeling, play a role in clinical outcomes following achalasia treatment.

AbstractBackground and AimsSome achalasia patients exhibit esophageal contractile activity on follow‐up after treatment, yet its importance remains unclear. We aimed to identify factors associated with presence of contractility after treatment and to assess its impact on timed barium esophagram (TBE) and clinical outcomes.MethodsPatients with type I or II achalasia on baseline high‐resolution manometry (HRM) who completed HRM, TBE, and functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) after treatment were retrospectively identified. Contractility was defined on post‐treatment HRM as presence of at least 1 supine swallow with DCI ≥100 mmHg s cm.Key ResultsOne hundred twenty‐two patients were included (mean age 48 ± 17 years, 50% female). At follow‐up evaluation after treatment (54% peroral endoscopic myotomy, 24% pneumatic dilation, 22% laparoscopic Heller myotomy), 61 (50%) patients had contractility on HRM. Patients with contractility (compared to those without) more frequently had type II achalasia (84% vs 57%, p = 0.001) and a post‐treatment normal EGJ opening classification on FLIP (69% vs 49%; p < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients with post‐treatment integrated relaxation pressure <15 mmHg and normal EGJ opening on FLIP (n = 53), those with contractility had a lower median column height on TBE at 1 min (4 vs 7 cm, p = 0.002) and 5 min (0 vs 5 cm, p = 0.001). In patients with “abnormal” EGJ metrics, patients with contractility showed lower symptom scores (median Eckardt score 2 vs 3, p = 0.03).Conclusions & InferencesOccurring more frequently in type II achalasia, and if adequate EGJ opening is achieved after treatment, esophageal contractility may contribute to improved esophageal emptying and improved symptoms in non‐spastic achalasia. Preservation of esophageal body muscle could improve outcomes in these patients.

AbstractBackground and AimsThe distal contractile integral (DCI) quantifies the contractile vigor of primary peristalsis on high‐resolution manometry (HRM), whereas no such metric exists for secondary peristalsis on functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry. This study aimed to evaluate novel FLIP metrics of contraction power and displaced volume in asymptomatic controls and a patient cohort.MethodsThirty‐five asymptomatic controls and adult patients (with normal esophagogastric junction outflow/opening and without spasm) who completed HRM and FLIP panometry were included. The patient group also completed timed barium esophagram (TBE). Contraction power (estimate of esophageal work over time) and displaced volume (estimate of contraction‐associated fluid flow) were computed from FLIP. HRM was analyzed per Chicago Classification v4.0.Key ResultsIn controls, median (5th–95th percentile) contraction power was 27 mW (10–44) and displaced volume was 43 mL (17–66). 95 patients were included: 72% with normal motility on HRM, 17% with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and 12% with absent contractility. Among patients, DCI was significantly correlated with both contraction power (rho = 0.499) and displaced volume (rho = 0.342); p values < 0.001. Both contraction power and displaced volume were greater in patients with normal motility versus IEM or absent contractility, complete versus incomplete bolus transit, and normal versus abnormal retention on TBE; p values < 0.02.ConclusionsFLIP panometry metrics of contraction power and displaced volume appeared to effectively quantify peristaltic vigor. These novel metrics may enhance evaluation of esophageal motility with FLIP panometry and provide a reliable surrogate to DCI on HRM.

AbstractBackgroundPrimary and secondary peristalsis facilitate esophageal bolus transport; however, their relative impact for bolus clearance remains unclear. We aimed to compare primary peristalsis and contractile reserve on high‐resolution manometry (HRM) and secondary peristalsis on functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) Panometry with emptying on timed barium esophagogram (TBE) and incorporate findings into a comprehensive model of esophageal function.MethodsAdult patients who completed HRM with multiple rapid swallows (MRS), FLIP, and TBE for esophageal motility evaluation and without abnormal esophagogastric junction outflow/opening or spasm were included. An abnormal TBE was defined as a 1‐min column height >5 cm. Primary peristalsis and contractile reserve after MRS were combined into an HRM–MRS model. Secondary peristalsis was combined with primary peristalsis assessment to describe a complementary neuromyogenic model.Key ResultsOf 89 included patients, differences in rates of abnormal TBEs were observed with primary peristalsis classification (normal: 14.3%; ineffective esophageal motility: 20.0%; absent peristalsis: 54.5%; p = 0.009), contractile reserve (present: 12.5%; absent: 29.3%; p = 0.05), and secondary peristalsis (normal: 9.7%; borderline: 17.6%; impaired/disordered: 28.6%; absent contractile response: 50%; p = 0.039). Logistic regression analysis (akaike information criteria, area under the receiver operating curve) demonstrated that the neuromyogenic model (80.8, 0.83) had a stronger relationship predicting abnormal TBE compared to primary peristalsis (81.5, 0.82), contractile reserve (86.8, 0.75), or secondary peristalsis (89.0, 0.78).Conclusions and InferencesPrimary peristalsis, contractile reserve, and secondary peristalsis were associated with abnormal esophageal retention as measured by TBE. Added benefit was observed when applying comprehensive models to incorporate primary and secondary peristalsis supporting their complementary application.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) evaluates esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and esophageal contractility. Both post hoc and real‐time analyses are possible, but reproducibility and reliability of analysis remain undefined. This study assesses inter‐ and intra‐rater agreement of normative FLIP measurements among novice and experienced users.MethodsEight motility experts from different institutions independently evaluated de‐identified video recordings from 27 asymptomatic healthy subjects using FLIP. Interpretation methods simulating a post‐procedure and a live procedure setting were tested. Novice FLIP users (n = 3) received training prior to post‐procedure interpretation. Experienced FLIP users (n = 5) interpreted using both methods. Users recorded maximum EGJ and distal esophageal body diameter, distensive pressure, and EGJ distensibility index (EGJ‐DI), at balloon fill volumes of 50‐, 60‐, and 70 ml, as well as repetitive antegrade contractions (RACs). Inter‐ and intra‐rater agreements of diameters, distensive pressure and EGJ‐DI were assessed by intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC). Percentage agreement evaluated inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability for RACs.Key ResultsNovice and experienced users acquired normative FLIP metrics. Good‐to‐excellent inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability were achieved for all variables at 60 ml balloon fill volumes. Median parameters at 60 ml balloon fill volume were as follows: EGJ‐DI 5.5 mm2/mmHg, maximum EGJ diameter 18.6 mm, distensive pressure at maximum EGJ diameter 48.1 mmHg, and distal esophageal body diameter 19.5 mm.Conclusions and InferencesNormative FLIP parameters can be reliably extracted from FLIP videos using both real‐time and post hoc analyses, with high reliability between experienced and novice users.

SummaryBackgroundAchalasia is a debilitating major motor disorder of the oesophagus. Hypervigilance and symptom‐specific anxiety substantially impact dysphagia symptom reporting, and quality of life is a critical patient outcome. Earlier achalasia symptom scales did not consider these constructs in their psychometric development.AimTo develop a new symptom measure, the Achalasia Patient‐Reported Outcomes (APRO) QuestionnaireMethodsFour gastroenterologists with achalasia expertise generated preliminary items. Patients reviewed items via cognitive interviews. Patients undergoing high‐resolution manometry completed the APRO with Oesophageal Hypervigilance and Anxiety Scale, Northwestern Oesophageal Quality of Life Scale, and three measures of reflux and dysphagia. Full APRO psychometric assessment (reliability, validity, factor structure) was done. Cluster analysis evaluated APRO + symptom‐anxiety/hypervigilance patient phenotypes.ResultsWe included 961 patients with normal motility and 296 with achalasia. The APRO yielded three subscales: dysphagia, reflux, chest pain with two items for weight change and diet modifications. Reliability and validity were excellent. Twenty‐five percent of achalasia patients may have high levels of anxiety/hypervigilance despite low symptoms, while 8% may report severe symptoms with low anxiety/hypervigilance. The APRO significantly predicted quality of life, but less cognitive‐affective processes.ConclusionsThe APRO is a reliable and valid measure of achalasia symptoms that addresses the limitations of existing questionnaires. Symptom anxiety and hypervigilance moderate the relationship between APRO and quality of life; 33% of patients with achalasia exhibit concerning patterns in symptom severity, anxiety and hypervigilance that may contribute to poorer outcomes.

Summary Background Upper endoscopy (EGD) is frequently performed in patients with esophageal complaints following anti-reflux surgery such as fundoplication. Endoscopic evaluation of fundoplication wrap integrity can be challenging. Our primary aim in this pilot study was to evaluate the accuracy and confidence of assessing Nissen fundoplication integrity and hiatus herniation among gastroenterology (GI) fellows, subspecialists, and foregut surgeons. Methods Five variations of post-Nissen fundoplication anatomy were included in a survey of 20 sets of EGD images that was completed by GI fellows, general GI attendings, esophagologists, and foregut surgeons. Accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and inter-rater agreement across providers were evaluated. Results There were 31 respondents in the final cohort. Confidence in pre-survey diagnostics significantly differed by provider type (mean confidence out of 5 was 1.8 for GI fellows, 2.7 for general GI attendings, 3.6 for esophagologists, and 3.6 for foregut surgeons, P = 0.01). The mean overall accuracy was 45.9%, which significantly differed by provider type with the lowest rate among GI fellows (37%) and highest among esophagologists (53%; P = 0.01). The accuracy was highest among esophagologists across all wrap integrity variations. Inter-rater agreement was low across wrap integrity variations (Krippendorf’s alpha &lt;0.30), indicating low to no agreement between providers. Conclusion In this multi-center survey study, GI fellows had the lowest accuracy and confidence in assessing EGD images after Nissen fundoplication, whereas esophagologists had the highest. Diagnostic confidence varied considerably and inter-rater agreement was poor. These findings suggest experience may improve confidence, but highlight the need to improve the evaluation of fundoplication wraps.

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.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended for patient use, enhancing the patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions during a consultation. Recently, a preliminary 78 question gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) specific QPL was created by 12 esophageal experts through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles) technique. Patients’ perspectives and opinions on each question, however, had not been accounted for in the preliminary expert’ version. Aim: The aim was to modify a preliminary experts’ QPL, specific to adults with GERD, following patient perspectives and opinions. Methods: A preliminary GERD QPL was modified through patient input and opinions. Thirty-eight patients with a clinical diagnosis of GERD followed at Stanford University Esophageal Clinic between January and November 2019 were consented to modify the preliminary 78 question expert QPL version. After receiving the QPL in Qualtrics (Provo, UT) by a direct e-mail invitation, patients independently rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=“should not be included,” 2=“unimportant,” 3=“don’t know/depends,” 4=“important,” and 5=“essential.” Questions were accepted for inclusion in the QPL with an a priori interagreement of 80% ranking in the range of 4 to 5. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open-endedly asking “Are there questions we didn’t ask, that you think we should?” Results: Twenty-three patients with GERD (19 female, median age 64) fully participated and modified the existing QPL (60.5%). Of the 78 questions from the preliminary GERD QPL, 66 questions (84.6%) were accepted for inclusion. The question with the highest agreement among patients rating a question as essential consisted of “what habits, food, and drinks do I have to avoid?” (82.6%). Questions eliminated because of disagreement included “What is the natural history of GERD,” “Do I have a high chance to die from my Barrett’s?,” and “Why are you prescribing an antidepressant to treat my GERD?” Nine patients suggested additional questions totaling to 16 separate questions, including “What type of surgeries are there to help GERD?,” “What stage is my GERD?,” “What are the odds/percentage of getting cancer from GERD?” Incorporating the suggested questions, the final GERD QPL—created by esophageal experts and modified by patients—consisted of 82 questions. Conclusion: Esophageal experts and GERD patients have a high level of agreement on important questions, though there is some variation in perspective. Future studies can simplify this list and measure the impact of a shared GERD QPL on patients’ decisional conflict and perceived involvement in care.