Woo, Matthew

Summary Background Medications can affect gastrointestinal tract motility. However, their effects on oesophageal motility in particular are often not as widely known or may be underestimated. Aim To review the effect of existing medication use on high‐resolution oesophageal manometry (HRM) in a ‘real‐world’ setting. Methods Adult patients with upper gut symptoms and normal endoscopy or imaging who had HRM over a 22‐month period were analysed. Achalasia and major disorders of peristalsis were excluded. All medications taken within 24 hours of the procedure were prospectively recorded and compared with HRM results, controlling for age, gender and proton pump inhibitor use. Results A total of 502 patients (323 female, mean age 51) were recruited. Of these, 41.2% had normal oesophageal HRM, while 41.4% had ineffective oesophageal motility (IOM) and 7.6% had oesophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (OGJOO). Serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and opioids were associated with significantly higher resting lower oesophageal sphincter pressure. Benzodiazepines and opioids were associated with elevated integrated relaxation pressure. SNRI and inhaled beta‐agonists were associated with increased distal contractile index, whereas calcium channel blockers were associated with a lower distal contractile index. Odds ratio of being on anticholinergics was higher in IOM patients vs normal (3.6, CI 1.2‐10.8). Odds ratio for anticholinergics, inhaled beta‐agonists, anticonvulsants, SNRIs and opioids (trend) were all > 3 for OGJOO patients vs normal. Conclusion Many medication classes are associated with abnormal HRM variables and diagnoses such as OGJOO and IOM; some of these associations are probably causal. These possible links should be taken into consideration during manometry interpretation.

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