Li, D Y

Abstract Background While motility disorders may evolve over time, there is scant guidance around the role of repeat high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM). Given the invasive nature of HRM and the implications on financial cost and patient discomfort, it is obvious that the emphasis should be on minimizing unnecessary repeat examinations. However, there are no recommendations around indications or timing of repeat HRM. Aims We aimed to determine the outcomes in patients who underwent repeat manometry and look for predictors of progression to achalasia or major motility disorder. Methods Consecutive reports from HRM studies performed between Aug 2013 – May 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients with ≥ 2 HRM studies were included. Studies without a Chicago classification diagnosis were excluded. Chi-squared analysis was performed to determine if initial HRM diagnosis was associated with change in diagnosis on follow-up HRM. Initial and follow-up manometric parameters were compared with paired T-tests. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to look for predictors of progression to achalasia or major motility disorder. Results 134 patients underwent ≥ 2 HRM studies. Initial diagnoses were IEM (45 patients [33.6%], EGJOO (34 [25.4%], absent peristalsis (18 [13.4%], achalasia (11 [8.2%], DES (4 [3.0%]), and JH (3 [2.2%]; 29 (14.2%) of patients had a normal HRM. 109 (81.3%) patients underwent 2 HRM, 18 (13.4%) 3 HRM, 4 (3%) 4 HRM, and 3 (2.2%) 5 HRM. The final follow-up HRM occurred after a median 496 [80 – 1823] days. 72 (53.7%) of patients had no change from their initial diagnosis. Patients with an initial diagnosis of DES were significantly more likely to have a change in diagnosis on the final follow-up (3 normal:1 IEM) (p = .043). No other classes reached significance. Patients with IEM had a significantly higher mean DCI (395.1 [0 - 3248] vs 790.8 [0 – 10715.0], p = .006) and IRP (4.5 [-10.4 – 14.2] vs [6.6 [-6.2 – 21.0], p = .017) on their follow-up HRM. 4 patients without achalasia (3 EGJOO:1 IEM) on their index HRM had a diagnosis of achalasia on their final HRM. The median IRP in non-achalasia patients with a diagnosis of achalasia on final HRM (22.3 [8.4 – 30.7] was significantly higher than those without a diagnosis of achalasia on final HRM (6.6 [-10.4 – 39.8]) (p = .013); however no manometric criteria or initial HRM diagnoses predicted progression to achalasia or major motility disorder on binary logistic regression analysis. Conclusions In most patients, repeat manometry did not change the manometric diagnosis. Patients with DES were significantly likely to have their diagnosis change with repeat HRM, and most of these patients had normalization of their HRM. Manometric parameters in IEM appear to improve over time. This finding could reflect interval therapy, or shed some light on the natural history of this disease. Funding Agencies None