Vela, Marcelo

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Eosinophilic Esophagitis Background Active inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disrupts the mucosal barrier, leading to dilated intercellular spaces and decreased transepithelial electrical resistance. Mucosal impedance (MI) has been used to assess mucosal integrity in EoE. We evaluated whether baseline MI measured by high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) distinguishes active and inactive EoE. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with EoE who underwent endoscopic esophageal biopsies within three months of HRIM from 2018-2026 at our tertiary referral center and had no treatment changes between studies. We excluded patients with a history of foregut surgery, erosive esophagitis, or Barrett’s esophagus. Demographics, endoscopy and pathology results were collected by chart review. Active EoE was histologically defined as ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field. Esophageal baseline MI was measured in the 30-second landmark period for the whole esophagus (from 2 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES), distal esophagus (from 2–7 cm above LES), and mid/proximal esophagus (from 10 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES). Mann–Whitney U or T tests were used for comparisons . Optimal MI thresholds were identified by Youden index with 10,000 bootstrap validations, and interrater reliability was assessed using two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficients. Results Seventy-three patients were included: 37 (51%) female, median age 52 years, median BMI 27.2 kg/m2. Fifty-seven patients (78%) had atopic history, including seasonal allergies (38, 52%), asthma (31, 42%), eczema (21, 29%), and food allergies (19, 26%). Thirty-nine patients (53%) were receiving proton pump inhibitors, 25 (34%) were not on EoE therapy, 5 (6.8%) were on swallowed topical steroids, 3 (4.1%) were on dupilumab, and 1 (1.4%) was on an elimination diet. Esophageal strictures were present in 23 patients (32%), and 45 (62%) had active EoE. Baseline MI measurement showed high interrater reliability (n=50, 2 raters; intraclass correlation coefficient 0.937–0.963, p<0.001). Basal mean and minimal impedance were significantly lower in active EoE across all segments, greatest in the distal esophagus (all p<0.05; Figure 1). ROC analysis showed high discrimination of distal mean MI, with a cutoff ≤1.91 kΩ (AUC=0.837, sensitivity 67.9%, specificity 86.7%, Youden 0.545; Figure 2). Conclusion Baseline mucosal impedance during HRIM distinguishes active from inactive EoE, with strongest discrimination in the distal esophagus, supporting MI as a potential, minimally-invasive physiologic marker of mucosal inflammation and disease activity. Clinically, MI may serve as an adjunct tool in dysphagia evaluation, prompting EoE-directed biopsy when abnormal, aiding management in biopsy–symptom discordance, and potentially supporting disease monitoring in selected patients. Larger prospective studies are warranted.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or catheter-based pH-impedance) performed off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE), commonly used to evaluate esophageal symptoms, routinely assesses reflux, yet its diagnostic accuracy relative to ambulatory monitoring remains unclear. Existing studies are limited, relied on outdated reflux criteria, and demonstrated poor concordance with BE-based GERD diagnoses. We aimed to determine whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Other Background Lichen planus is a chronic immune-mediated skin disease that may involve the esophagus. Esophageal lichen planus (ELP) is considered rare, but likely underdiagnosed. Lack of published guidelines for ELP results in significant treatment variability. Given heterogeneous practice patterns and emerging treatments, further outcome data are needed. Methods A retrospective cohort of ELP patients was assembled from 3 academic centers. Patients ≥ 18 years old were identified by ICD10 code search (L43.8) in the electronic health record, from 2006 to 2025. Patients were included if they had initial endoscopy, histology, and follow-up endoscopy showing features of LP, and excluded if there was diagnostic uncertainty, unavailable procedural documentation, or other esophageal diseases. Endoscopic findings were assessed qualitatively by manual review of reports. Data abstracted included demographics, presenting symptoms, endoscopic/histologic findings, treatment, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed in R. Results 193 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age at index endoscopy was 65 years, 86% were female, 98% were non-Hispanic Caucasian, 39% were ever smokers, and mean BMI was 26. Dysphagia was the most common presenting symptom (90%). Strictures were common (73%), 58% underwent dilation during initial endoscopy. Endoscopic findings included presence of sloughing (20%), exudate (22%) and friability (23%). Histology showed lymphocytic infiltrate (47%), parakeratosis/dyskeratosis (42%) and Civatte bodies (17%). Topical steroids (71%) and PPIs (63%) were used most frequently for treatment. Immunosuppressives (tacrolimus, systemic steroids, mycophenolate, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, cyclosporine, azathioprine, JAK inhibitor) were used in 54% of patients. Endoscopic improvement was seen in 66%, with highest response rates in tacrolimus (100%), hydroxychloroquine (100%), and a JAK inhibitor (100%). Symptom improvement was seen in 63%, with the greatest benefit seen in patients treated with a JAK inhibitor (100%) and hydroxychloroquine (86%). Conclusion In this large, multisite cohort, ELP demonstrated significant morbidity, with high rates of dysphagia, strictures, and inflammatory changes. Dilation appeared to be safe, with only a single iatrogenic perforation identified. Esophageal squamous cell cancer risk was low but present, at 4%. Despite heterogeneous treatment practices, several therapies – tacrolimus, hydroxychloroquine, and JAK inhibitors – were associated with marked endoscopic and symptomatic improvement. Prospective studies are needed to clarify the optimal approach to pharmacological management of ELP.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE) routinely evaluates reflux, but its diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. We assessed whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

Gastrointestinal (GI) amyloidosis can be acquired or genetic and is commonly caused by chronic inflammatory illnesses (AA amyloidosis), haematological malignancies (AL amyloidosis) and end-stage renal disease (beta-2 microglobulin amyloidosis). The accumulation of these aberrant proteins disrupts the structures and functions of many organs; the least common of which is the GI tract. GI presentations depend on the type, location and amount of amyloid deposition. Symptoms can range from nausea and vomiting to fatal GI bleeds. Pathological examination of the involved tissue with characteristic green birefringence under polarised light is used to confirm the diagnosis. Patients should be considered for further evaluation to rule out additional organ involvement, notably cardiac and renal. We present a patient with amyloidosis-induced gastroparesis, an under-recognised presentation of systemic amyloidosis in the gastroenterology system.

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.

Abstract 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.

OBJECTIVES: Symptoms are inconsistently associated with esophageal motor findings on high-resolution manometry (HRM). We aimed to evaluate predictors of dysphagia severity, including esophageal hypervigilance and visceral anxiety, among patients evaluated with HRM. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing HRM at 4 academic medical centers (United States and France) were prospectively evaluated. HRM was completed and analyzed per the Chicago Classification v3.0. Validated symptom scores, including the Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire and Esophageal Hypervigilance and Anxiety Scale, were completed at the time of HRM. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-six patients, aged 18–85 (mean 53) years, 65% female, were included. Approximately 59 (25%) patients had a major motor disorder on HRM: 19 achalasia, 24 esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, 12 absent contractility, and 4 jackhammer. Approximately 177 (75%) patients did not have a major motor disorder: 71 ineffective esophageal motility and 106 normal motility. Having a major motor disorder was a significant predictor of dysphagia severity (R 2 adj = 0.049, P < 0.001), but the Esophageal Hypervigilance and Anxiety Scale score carried a predictive relationship of Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire that was 2-fold higher than having a major motor disorder: R 2 adj = 0.118 ( P < 0.001). This finding remained when evaluated by the major motor disorder group. HRM metrics were nonsignificant. DISCUSSION: In a prospective, international multicenter study, we found that esophageal hypervigilance and visceral anxiety were the strongest predictors of dysphagia severity among patients evaluated with HRM. Thus, an assessment of esophageal hypervigilance and visceral anxiety is important to incorporate when evaluating symptom severity in clinical practice and research studies.