Vela, Marcelo F

ABSTRACTBackgroundAchalasia is associated with an increased risk of esophageal cancer; though reported incidence rates vary widely (0.4% to 9.2%) due to differences in demographics, follow‐up duration, and diagnostic methods. This study evaluates the risk of esophageal cancer and Barrett's esophagus (BE) in achalasia using a large national database and a propensity‐matched control cohort.MethodsAchalasia patients were identified utilizing the TriNetX database based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for diagnostic procedures and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapies, including Heller myotomy, peroral endoscopic myotomy, and pneumatic dilation. A matched control group of celiac disease patients was used. A 1‐year lead time was applied to exclude secondary malignant achalasia. Outcomes included the incidence of esophageal cancer and BE, with subgroup analysis in patients following therapy.ResultsAmong 7863 achalasia patients (mean age 58.0, 51.9% female), the esophageal cancer risk was significantly higher than control (risk ratio 2.87, 95% CI: 1.56–5.27, p < 0.001). The absolute risk was low, with 40 cases (0.51%) over a mean follow‐up of 3.18 years. BE risk was also higher in achalasia (risk ratio 1.54, 95% CI: 1.24–1.90, p < 0.001), with 220 cases (2.80%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in BE risk between POEM and Heller myotomy (risk ratio 1.0, 95% CI: 0.42–2.40, p > 0.99).DiscussionThe elevated cancer risk in achalasia over a short follow‐up period warrants reconsideration of current endoscopic surveillance guidelines, despite the low absolute risk of esophageal cancer and BE.

ABSTRACT Background Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) utility is established in treatment‐naïve achalasia but less clear following lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapy. Methods Achalasia patients with LES directed therapy across three tertiary care centers between 2017 and 2024 with post‐treatment FLIP and timed barium esophagram (TBE) were retrospectively identified. Reduced esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening was defined by distensibility index (DI) < 2 mm 2 /mmHg and diameter < 12 mm. Abnormal emptying on TBE was defined as column height ≥ 5 cm at 5 min and/or retained tablet. Eckardt scores ≤ 3 defined clinical response. Key Results The study included 222 patients (46% peroral endoscopic myotomy, 46% laparoscopic Heller myotomy, 8% pneumatic dilation) with a median of 1.4 years to post‐treatment TBE/FLIP. Abnormal emptying on TBE was associated with a narrower median EGJ diameter (13.2 vs. 14.8 mm, p = 0.008), a greater frequency of EGJ diameter < 12 mm (36% vs. 21%, p = 0.012), and a smaller change in EGJ diameter (+4.6 vs. +8.6 mm, p = 0.002). Abnormal emptying on TBE occurred more frequently in patients with EGJ DI < 2 mm 2 /mmHg (8.5% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.052), but was not associated with median EGJ DI (4.5 vs. 5.1 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.29) nor median change in EGJ DI (+2.9 vs. +3.9 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.25). Patients with reduced EGJ DI or EGJ diameter more often had abnormal TBE (37% vs. 22%, p = 0.012). Only the change in DI (+3.8 vs. +1.5 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.012) and diameter (+8.2 vs. +1.6 mm, p = 0.002) on FLIP was associated with a clinical response based on Eckardt ≤ 3. Conclusions and Inferences FLIP following achalasia therapy generally correlates with TBE, although discrepant findings are not uncommon. In particular, FLIP EGJ‐diameter has a strong association with esophageal emptying on TBE. Both TBE and FLIP have limited association with clinical response based on Eckardt, with change in DI and diameter on FLIP most strongly associated. Consequently, FLIP as part of multimodal assessment appears useful in the longitudinal follow‐up of treated achalasia.

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be challenging given varying symptom presentations, and complex multifactorial pathophysiology. The gold standard for GERD diagnosis is esophageal acid exposure time (AET) measured by pH‐metry. A variety of additional diagnostic tools are available. The goal of this consensus was to assess the individual merits of GERD diagnostic tools based on current evidence, and provide consensus recommendations following discussion and voting by experts.MethodsThis consensus was developed by 15 experts from nine countries, based on a systematic search of the literature, using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) methodology to assess the quality and strength of the evidence, and provide recommendations regarding the diagnostic utility of different GERD diagnosis tools, using AET as the reference standard.Key ResultsA proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial is appropriate for patients with heartburn and no alarm symptoms, but nor for patients with regurgitation, chest pain, or extraesophageal presentations. Severe erosive esophagitis and abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI are clearly indicative of GERD. Esophagram, esophageal biopsies, laryngoscopy, and pharyngeal pH monitoring are not recommended to diagnose GERD. Patients with PPI‐refractory symptoms and normal endoscopy require reflux monitoring by pH or pH‐impedance to confirm or exclude GERD, and identify treatment failure mechanisms. GERD confounders need to be considered in some patients, pH‐impedance can identify supragrastric belching, impedance‐manometry can diagnose rumination.ConclusionsErosive esophagitis on endoscopy and abnormal pH or pH‐impedance monitoring are the most appropriate methods to establish a diagnosis of GERD. Other tools may add useful complementary information.

AbstractBackgroundQuestion prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease‐specific questions, intended to encourage question‐asking by patients and enhance patient‐physician communication. To date, a dysphagia‐specific QPL has not been developed for patients with esophageal dysphagia symptoms. We aim to develop a dysphagia‐specific QPL incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives, applying rigorous methodology.MethodsThe QPL content was generated applying a two‐round modified Delphi (RAND/UCLA) method among 11 experts. In round one, experts provided five answers to the prompts: “What general questions should patients ask when being seen for dysphagia?” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking but, given my experience, I believe they should be asking?” In round two, experts rated proposed questions on a 5‐point Likert scale. Responses rated as “essential” or “important”, determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for inclusion. Subsequently, 20 patients from Stanford Health Care were enrolled to modify the preliminary QPL, to incorporate their perspectives and opinions. Patients independently rated questions applying the same 5‐point Likert scale. 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?”Key ResultsEleven experts participated in both voting rounds. Of 85 questions generated from round one, 60 (70.6%) were accepted for inclusion, meeting a median value of ≥4.0. Questions were combined to reduce redundancy, narrowing down to 44 questions. Questions were categorized into the following six themes: 1. “What is causing my dysphagia?”; 2. “Associated symptoms”; 3. “Testing for dysphagia”; 4. “Lifestyle modifications”; 5. “Treatment for dysphagia”; and 6. “Prognosis”. The largest number of questions covered “What is causing my dysphagia” (27.3%). Twenty patients participated and modified the QPL. Of the 44 questions experts agreed were important, only 30 questions (68.2%) were accepted for inclusion. Six patients proposed 10 additional questions and after incorporating the suggested questions, the final dysphagia‐specific QPL created by esophageal experts and modified by patients consisted of 40 questions.Conclusions & InferencesIncorporating expert and patient perspectives, we developed a dysphagia‐specific QPL to enhance patient‐physician communication. Our study highlights importance of incorporating patient perspective when developing such a communication tool. Further studies will measure the impact of this communication tool on patient engagement.

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.