Jain, Anand

Purpose: There are reported barriers to implementation of esophageal screening during the videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) completed by the speech-language pathologist (SLP). Often, patients referred to the SLP for a VFSS have an esophageal component that may explain their complaint. In this article, authors explore roadblocks to esophageal screening and potential roadmaps to improve patient care through standardization of esophageal screening procedures. Conclusions: A strong body of literature supports physiologic, anatomic, and disease state relationships of the oropharynx and esophagus. Despite this, the assessment of the oropharynx and esophagus is dichotomized. There remain billing limitations for same-day esophagram and VFSS, and the well-documented esophageal screen provides a view of bolus flow in an upright, typical eating position with consideration of oropharyngeal function to provide a comprehensive view of the continuous process of swallowing from mouth to stomach. The continued practice of evaluating the oropharynx without consideration of the esophagus poses a threat to patient safety and may delay care. A collaborative, multidisciplinary effort among healthcare professionals to create streamlined practice parameters, update position statements, and enhance education parameters will allow for cohesive practices among professionals. Assessment of the swallow mechanism is incomplete without consideration of the entire continuum.

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.

Summary Background Optimal ambulatory reflux monitoring methodology in symptomatic reflux patients continues to be debated. Aims To utilise published literature and expert opinion to develop recommendation statements addressing use of ambulatory reflux monitoring in clinical practice Methods The RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) was utilised among 17 experts with discussion, revision and two rounds of ranking of recommendation statements. Ambulatory reflux monitoring protocol, methodology and thresholds ranked as appropriate by ≥80% of panellists met the criteria for appropriateness. Results Prolonged (96‐h recommended) wireless pH monitoring off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was identified as the appropriate diagnostic tool to assess the need for acid suppression in patients with unproven gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and persisting typical reflux symptoms despite once‐daily PPI. Acid exposure time (AET) <4.0% on all days of monitoring with negative reflux‐symptom association excludes GERD and does not support ongoing PPI treatment. Conversely, AET >6.0% across ≥2 days is conclusive evidence for GERD and supports treatment for GERD, while AET >10% across ≥2 days identifies severe acid burden that supports escalation of anti‐reflux treatment. In previously proven GERD, impedance‐pH monitoring on PPI is helpful in defining refractory GERD and mechanisms of continued symptoms; the presence of <40 reflux events, AET <2.0% and a negative reflux‐symptom association does not support escalation of anti‐reflux treatment. In contrast, AET > 4.0% and positive reflux‐symptom association support escalation of anti‐reflux treatment, including use of invasive therapeutics. Conclusions Statements meeting appropriateness for average clinical care have been identified when utilising reflux monitoring in patients with typical reflux symptoms and PPI non‐response.

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.