Gawron, Andrew J.

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.

AbstractBackgroundCompetent interpretation of esophageal high‐resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level.MethodsA total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups—expert test‐takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees (“trainee test‐taker”; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test‐takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test‐taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills.Key ResultsThe HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65–80%, 85–90% (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90–95%, respectively.Conclusions & InferencesUsing a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.