Vázquez‐Elizondo, Genaro

SummaryHigh-resolution esophageal manometry [HRM] has become the gold standard for the evaluation of esophageal motility disorders. It is unclear whether there are HRM differences in diagnostic outcome based on regional or geographic distribution. The diagnostic outcome of HRM in a diverse geographical population of Mexico was compared and determined if there is variability in diagnostic results among referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for HRM during 2016–2020 were included. Four major referral centers in Mexico participated in the study: northeastern, southeastern, and central (Mexico City, two centers). All studies were interpreted by experienced investigators using Chicago Classification 3 and the same technology. A total of 2293 consecutive patients were included. More abnormal studies were found in the center (61.3%) versus south (45.8%) or north (45.2%) P < 0.001. Higher prevalence of achalasia was noted in the south (21.5%) versus center (12.4%) versus north (9.5%) P < 0.001. Hypercontractile disorders were more common in the north (11.0%) versus the south (5.2%) or the center (3.6%) P.001. A higher frequency of weak peristalsis occurred in the center (76.8%) versus the north (74.2%) or the south (69.2%) P < 0.033. Gastroesophageal junction obstruction was diagnosed in (7.2%) in the center versus the (5.3%) in the north and (4.2%) in the south p.141 (ns). This is the first study to address the diagnostic outcome of HRM in diverse geographical regions of Mexico. We identified several significant diagnostic differences across geographical centers. Our study provides the basis for further analysis of the causes contributing to these differences.

Jackhammer esophagus (JE) is a recently recognized esophageal motility disorder that is characterized by hypercontractile peristalsis. More than 500 cases have been reported in the literature. Among patients referred for esophageal motility disorders, the prevalence of JE ranges from 0.42% to 9%, with most series describing a prevalence of 2% to 4%. Most cases are women (60.5%). The mean reported age of patients with JE is 65.2 years, and patients commonly have dysphagia (62.8%). Reflux symptoms occur in ∼40% of patients, and chest pain affects more than one-third of patients (36.4%). JE is a heterogenous disorder that is associated with several conditions, including obesity, opioid use, lung transplantation, eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus, neoplasia, and systemic diseases. The cause and pathogenesis remain unknown, but several observations suggest that it is the result of multiple conditions that likely precipitate increased excitation and abnormal inhibition of neuromuscular function. The natural course of JE also is unknown, but progression to achalasia has been observed in a few patients. Treatment is challenging, in part because of the insufficient understanding of the disorder’s underlying mechanisms. Various therapeutic modalities have been used, ranging from observation only to pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions (eg, botulinum toxin injection) to peroral endoscopic myotomy. Treatment efficacy remains largely anecdotal and insufficiently studied.

SummaryBackgroundCurrent diagnostic guidelines recommend that eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) should be diagnosed only after GERD is excluded by a lack of response to a trial of acid suppression. There is limited information available providing outcome data about the effectiveness of this approach.AimTo examine the impact of double‐dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on symptoms, endoscopic and histological features in patients with documented oesophageal eosinophilia consistent with EoE (≥15 eosinophils/high‐power field).MethodsSixty consecutive symptomatic patients with documented oesophageal eosinophilia received open‐label omeprazole 20 mg orally twice daily before meals for 8 weeks. Clinical, endoscopic and histological (resolution: 0–5 eosinophils/HPF, partial improvement: 5–14 eosinophils/HPF), or no improvement: (≥15 eosinophils/HPF) evaluation was repeated at the end of this period. An expert GI pathologist, unaware of the study aims, reviewed all slides.ResultsClinical improvement occurred in 43 (71.6%), endoscopic signs were reduced in 34 (61.8%) and normalised in 12 (21.8%), and histologically, 34 (56.6%) improved, while 15 (25%) obtained complete resolution. Overall, 22 patients (36.7%) obtained both complete clinical and histological remission.ConclusionsMore than 50% of patients with documented oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration in the EoE range improved when treated with a double‐dose PPI trial for 8 weeks. These findings support the published guidelines recommending a PPI trial prior to diagnosing EoE, and confirm the existence of an eosinophilic oesophageal infiltrationPPI‐responsive population.