Kahrilas, Peter J.

Background: Pathologic reflux is a common debilitating digestive condition and anti-reflux surgery is an effective treatment option. Depending on the specifics of the procedure, anti-reflux surgery leads to distinct changes in the endoscopic appearance of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). This American Foregut Society (AFS) white paper develops nomenclature for describing the endoscopic characteristics of the EGJ after commonly performed laparoscopic antireflux operations. Methods: The AFS Anti-Reflux Barrier Collaborative analyzed the anatomic manipulation and corresponding endoscopic appearance of the EGJ after commonly performed anti-reflux surgery including: (1) 360° anterior/posterior (AP) fundoplication (Nissen); (2) posterior partial fundoplication (Toupet); (3) anterior partial fundoplication (Watson, Dor); (4) magnetic sphincter augmentation; and (5) concomitant hiatal hernia repair with transoral fundoplication (cTIF). Results: Characteristics common to the anti-reflux surgery procedures include restoration of intra-abdominal esophageal length and crural diaphragm repair such that the hiatal aperture is no longer visible in the retroflexed endoscopic view. With regard to the geometry of anti-reflux procedures, the Collaborative established that when evaluated endoscopically in retroflection, the surgically constructed valve should be described in reference to the angle of His and the extent of anatomic change described in terms of (1) the depth of the anterior and posterior grooves, (2) the apposition of the valve collar to the endoscope, (3) the length of the valve, and (4) the position of the squamocolumnar junction relative to the lip of the valve. Conclusions: Current anti-reflux operations share much in common but employ varying degrees of valvular reconstruction leading to distinct endoscopic characteristics. Developing a consistent nomenclature for describing the appearance of the post-surgical valve is essential to develop a better understanding of how variables such as the tightness of the hiatal repair, tightness of the valve collar, and length of the valve can impact the outcome of anti-reflux surgery and predict reflux recurrence.

Background: Within the spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), pathologic reflux applies to the subset of patients with either erosive esophagitis or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on pH-metry, consequences of a dysfunctional antireflux barrier (ARB). Methods: The American Foregut Society (AFS) tasked a 13-member working group of expert foregut surgeons and esophagologists (The ARB Cooperative) to develop a white paper on ARB function, dysfunction, and mechanisms of action of antireflux surgery through discussion of relevant literature summarized herein. Results: The ARB Cooperative concluded that pathologic reflux is a consequence of the interplay between progressive anatomical distortion of the ARB and physiology. Factors contributing to ARB dysfunction include (1) separation of crural diaphragm from the lower esophageal sphincter with widening of the hiatus and diminished crural diaphragm sphincteric function; (2) loss of the intra-abdominal lower esophageal sphincter segment with complete disabling of the flap valve component of the ARB; (3) axial hiatal hernia leading to reflux during swallow-induced lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation, LES hypotension, inspiration related reflux, a lowered threshold for eliciting transient LES relaxations, and increased compliance of the gastroesophageal junction leading to greater diameter of sphincter opening during transient LES relaxations. With regard to antireflux surgery, the objectives include: (1) reduction of hiatal hernia and restoration of the intra-abdominal esophageal segment; (2) repair of the dilated hiatus; (3) restoring flap valve function by modifying gastroesophageal anatomy; and (4) restricting gastroesophageal junction opening during periods of relaxation. Conclusions: This ARB Cooperative white paper supports the concept of there being 3 major inter-related mechanisms promoting ARB competence: the LES as an intrinsic sphincter, the crural diaphragm as an extrinsic sphincter, and the gastroesophageal valve, a mechanical 1-way valve. Pathological reflux occurs with progressive anatomical disruption of the ARB which in turn leads to physiological dysfunction, the severity of which parallels the extent of anatomical disruption. The corollary of this is that the primary mechanism of antireflux surgery is to restore the ARB by eliminating or compensating for its anatomical disruption. It is the hope of the cooperative that understanding the proposed framework will help clinicians and researchers in improving antireflux procedures.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the established efficacy of achalasia treatments on symptomatic outcomes, there are limited data evaluating the treatment effect on esophageal dilatation. This study aimed to assess the effect achalasia treatment on esophageal dilatation and the effect of esophageal width reduction (“recoil”) on clinical outcomes.MethodsPatients with type I or type II achalasia that completed high‐resolution manometry (HRM), functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP), and timed barium esophagram (TBE) pre and post treatment were included. Esophageal width was measured using TBE. Focused subgroup analysis was performed on patients with normal posttreatment EGJ opening on FLIP. Good clinical outcomes were defined as barium column height of <5 cm at 5 min and Eckardt Score ≤3.Key ResultsSixty‐nine patients (41% type I and 59% type II) were included. Esophageal width decreased from pre to post treatment mean (SD) 4.2 (1.3) cm–2.8 (1.2) cm; p < 0.01. In the normal post treatment EGJ opening subgroup, esophageal width was less in patients with good TBE outcome compared to poor outcome mean (SD) 2.2 (0.7) cm versus 3.2 (1.4) cm (p < 0.01), but did not differ in good versus poor symptomatic outcome groups. Esophageal width recoil >25% posttreatment was associated with a greater rate of good TBE outcome (71% vs. 50%, p = 0.04) and good symptomatic outcome (88% vs. 50%; p = 0.04).Conclusions and InferencesEsophageal recoil was associated with good achalasia treatment outcome in patients without posttreatment EGJ obstruction. This suggests that mechanical properties of the esophageal wall, likely associated with tissue remodeling, play a role in clinical outcomes following achalasia treatment.

AbstractBackground and AimsSome achalasia patients exhibit esophageal contractile activity on follow‐up after treatment, yet its importance remains unclear. We aimed to identify factors associated with presence of contractility after treatment and to assess its impact on timed barium esophagram (TBE) and clinical outcomes.MethodsPatients with type I or II achalasia on baseline high‐resolution manometry (HRM) who completed HRM, TBE, and functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) after treatment were retrospectively identified. Contractility was defined on post‐treatment HRM as presence of at least 1 supine swallow with DCI ≥100 mmHg s cm.Key ResultsOne hundred twenty‐two patients were included (mean age 48 ± 17 years, 50% female). At follow‐up evaluation after treatment (54% peroral endoscopic myotomy, 24% pneumatic dilation, 22% laparoscopic Heller myotomy), 61 (50%) patients had contractility on HRM. Patients with contractility (compared to those without) more frequently had type II achalasia (84% vs 57%, p = 0.001) and a post‐treatment normal EGJ opening classification on FLIP (69% vs 49%; p < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients with post‐treatment integrated relaxation pressure <15 mmHg and normal EGJ opening on FLIP (n = 53), those with contractility had a lower median column height on TBE at 1 min (4 vs 7 cm, p = 0.002) and 5 min (0 vs 5 cm, p = 0.001). In patients with “abnormal” EGJ metrics, patients with contractility showed lower symptom scores (median Eckardt score 2 vs 3, p = 0.03).Conclusions & InferencesOccurring more frequently in type II achalasia, and if adequate EGJ opening is achieved after treatment, esophageal contractility may contribute to improved esophageal emptying and improved symptoms in non‐spastic achalasia. Preservation of esophageal body muscle could improve outcomes in these patients.

AbstractBackground and AimsThe distal contractile integral (DCI) quantifies the contractile vigor of primary peristalsis on high‐resolution manometry (HRM), whereas no such metric exists for secondary peristalsis on functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry. This study aimed to evaluate novel FLIP metrics of contraction power and displaced volume in asymptomatic controls and a patient cohort.MethodsThirty‐five asymptomatic controls and adult patients (with normal esophagogastric junction outflow/opening and without spasm) who completed HRM and FLIP panometry were included. The patient group also completed timed barium esophagram (TBE). Contraction power (estimate of esophageal work over time) and displaced volume (estimate of contraction‐associated fluid flow) were computed from FLIP. HRM was analyzed per Chicago Classification v4.0.Key ResultsIn controls, median (5th–95th percentile) contraction power was 27 mW (10–44) and displaced volume was 43 mL (17–66). 95 patients were included: 72% with normal motility on HRM, 17% with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and 12% with absent contractility. Among patients, DCI was significantly correlated with both contraction power (rho = 0.499) and displaced volume (rho = 0.342); p values < 0.001. Both contraction power and displaced volume were greater in patients with normal motility versus IEM or absent contractility, complete versus incomplete bolus transit, and normal versus abnormal retention on TBE; p values < 0.02.ConclusionsFLIP panometry metrics of contraction power and displaced volume appeared to effectively quantify peristaltic vigor. These novel metrics may enhance evaluation of esophageal motility with FLIP panometry and provide a reliable surrogate to DCI on HRM.

AbstractBackgroundPrimary and secondary peristalsis facilitate esophageal bolus transport; however, their relative impact for bolus clearance remains unclear. We aimed to compare primary peristalsis and contractile reserve on high‐resolution manometry (HRM) and secondary peristalsis on functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) Panometry with emptying on timed barium esophagogram (TBE) and incorporate findings into a comprehensive model of esophageal function.MethodsAdult patients who completed HRM with multiple rapid swallows (MRS), FLIP, and TBE for esophageal motility evaluation and without abnormal esophagogastric junction outflow/opening or spasm were included. An abnormal TBE was defined as a 1‐min column height >5 cm. Primary peristalsis and contractile reserve after MRS were combined into an HRM–MRS model. Secondary peristalsis was combined with primary peristalsis assessment to describe a complementary neuromyogenic model.Key ResultsOf 89 included patients, differences in rates of abnormal TBEs were observed with primary peristalsis classification (normal: 14.3%; ineffective esophageal motility: 20.0%; absent peristalsis: 54.5%; p = 0.009), contractile reserve (present: 12.5%; absent: 29.3%; p = 0.05), and secondary peristalsis (normal: 9.7%; borderline: 17.6%; impaired/disordered: 28.6%; absent contractile response: 50%; p = 0.039). Logistic regression analysis (akaike information criteria, area under the receiver operating curve) demonstrated that the neuromyogenic model (80.8, 0.83) had a stronger relationship predicting abnormal TBE compared to primary peristalsis (81.5, 0.82), contractile reserve (86.8, 0.75), or secondary peristalsis (89.0, 0.78).Conclusions and InferencesPrimary peristalsis, contractile reserve, and secondary peristalsis were associated with abnormal esophageal retention as measured by TBE. Added benefit was observed when applying comprehensive models to incorporate primary and secondary peristalsis supporting their complementary application.

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.

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.

Background: The American Foregut Society (AFS) is dedicated to advancing patient care and digestive health within the realm of foregut disease. One of the most common and debilitating esophageal conditions is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Hill grade is an endoscopic classification of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) based on the appearance of the gastroesophageal flap valve from a retroflexed view of the hiatus. This endoscopic classification provides insight into the anatomic disruption of the EGJ which has been shown to correlate with GERD. However, clinical utilization of this classification by endoscopists has been limited due to the perceived relevance and subjectivity of the classification. With the advent of endoscopic treatment options for GERD, there is renewed enthusiasm to develop a grading system of the EGJ that can objectively define anatomical impairment and reduce interobserver grading variability. Methods: The AFS convened a 13-member working group tasked with reviewing the Hill grade classification and formulating a proposal for its revision utilizing a modified Delphi method. This white paper summarizes the output from this working group. Results: The working group concluded that all components of the antireflux barrier—the lower esophageal sphincter and its sling fibers, the crural diaphragm, and the gastroesophageal flap valve—contribute to EGJ integrity. Using defined objective parameters of extent of hiatal axial herniation and crural disruption and presence or absence of a flap valve, the new AFS classification stratifies EGJ integrity from normal (grade 1) to increasing degrees of EGJ disruption (grade 2-4) beginning with loss of the flap valve and progressing to increasing degrees of crural disruption and hiatus hernia. This AFS classification also stipulates appropriate endoscopic methodology to utilize in making the assessment and provides a basic nomenclature for communication among endoscopists. Conclusions: The AFS endoscopic classification of the EGJ expands on the Hill classification by including assessment of axial hiatal hernia length (L), hiatal aperture diameter (D), and presence or absence of the flap valve (F) making it more comprehensive - LDF components. Future directions include validation studies correlating the ability of the AFS classification in predicting the presence and severity of GERD.

SummaryBackgroundAchalasia is a debilitating major motor disorder of the oesophagus. Hypervigilance and symptom‐specific anxiety substantially impact dysphagia symptom reporting, and quality of life is a critical patient outcome. Earlier achalasia symptom scales did not consider these constructs in their psychometric development.AimTo develop a new symptom measure, the Achalasia Patient‐Reported Outcomes (APRO) QuestionnaireMethodsFour gastroenterologists with achalasia expertise generated preliminary items. Patients reviewed items via cognitive interviews. Patients undergoing high‐resolution manometry completed the APRO with Oesophageal Hypervigilance and Anxiety Scale, Northwestern Oesophageal Quality of Life Scale, and three measures of reflux and dysphagia. Full APRO psychometric assessment (reliability, validity, factor structure) was done. Cluster analysis evaluated APRO + symptom‐anxiety/hypervigilance patient phenotypes.ResultsWe included 961 patients with normal motility and 296 with achalasia. The APRO yielded three subscales: dysphagia, reflux, chest pain with two items for weight change and diet modifications. Reliability and validity were excellent. Twenty‐five percent of achalasia patients may have high levels of anxiety/hypervigilance despite low symptoms, while 8% may report severe symptoms with low anxiety/hypervigilance. The APRO significantly predicted quality of life, but less cognitive‐affective processes.ConclusionsThe APRO is a reliable and valid measure of achalasia symptoms that addresses the limitations of existing questionnaires. Symptom anxiety and hypervigilance moderate the relationship between APRO and quality of life; 33% of patients with achalasia exhibit concerning patterns in symptom severity, anxiety and hypervigilance that may contribute to poorer outcomes.