Kahrilas, Peter J.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions that enhance patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask questions during consultations. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary achalasia-specific QPL created by esophageal experts. Methods: The QPL content was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of achalasia” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Questions considered “essential” or “important” were accepted into the QPL. Feedback regarding the QPL was obtained in a pilot study wherein patients received the QPL before their consultation and completed surveys afterwards. Results: Nineteen esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Of 148 questions from round 1, 124 (83.8%) were accepted into the QPL. These were further reduced to 56 questions to minimize redundancy. Questions were categorized into 6 themes: “What is achalasia,” “Risks with achalasia,” “Symptom management in achalasia,” “Treatment of achalasia,” “Risk of reflux after treatment,” and “Follow-up after treatment.” Nineteen patients participated in the pilot, most of whom agreed that the QPL was helpful (84.2%) and recommended its wider use (84.2%). Conclusions: This is the first QPL developed specifically for adults with achalasia. Although well-received in a small pilot, follow-up studies will incorporate additional patient feedback to further refine the QPL content and assess its usability, acceptability, and feasibility.

INTRODUCTION: Functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry can evaluate esophageal motility in response to sustained esophageal distension at the time of sedated endoscopy. This study aimed to describe a classification of esophageal motility using FLIP panometry and evaluate it against high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0). METHODS: Five hundred thirty-nine adult patients who completed FLIP and HRM with a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis were included in the primary analysis. Thirty-five asymptomatic volunteers (“controls”) and 148 patients with an inconclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis or systemic sclerosis were also described. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and the contractile response (CR) to distension (i.e., secondary peristalsis) were evaluated with a 16-cm FLIP during sedated endoscopy and analyzed using a customized software program. HRM was classified according to CCv4.0. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 156 patients (29%) had normal motility on FLIP panometry, defined by normal EGJ opening and a normal or borderline CR; 95% of these patients had normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility on HRM. Two hundred two patients (37%) had obstruction with weak CR, defined as reduced EGJ opening and absent CR or impaired/disordered CR, on FLIP panometry; 92% of these patients had a disorder of EGJ outflow per CCv4.0. DISCUSSION: Classifying esophageal motility in response to sustained distension with FLIP panometry parallels the swallow-associated motility evaluation provided with HRM and CCv4.0. Thus, FLIP panometry serves as a well-tolerated method that can complement, or in some cases be an alternative to HRM, for evaluating esophageal motility disorders.

AbstractBackgroundThe management of achalasia has improved due to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. However, variability in care delivery remains and no established measures defining quality of care for this population exist. We aimed to use formal methodology to establish quality indicators for achalasia patients.MethodsQuality indicator concepts were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines and clinical experts. Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, experts in achalasia independently ranked proposed concepts in a two‐round modified Delphi process based on 1) importance, 2) scientific acceptability, 3) usability, and 4) feasibility. Highly valid measures required strict agreement (≧ 80% of panelists) in the range of 7–9 for across all four categories.Key ResultsThere were 17 experts who rated 26 proposed quality indicator topics. In round one, 2 (8%) quality measures were rated valid. In round two, 19 measures were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts rated 10 (53%) of these measures as valid, resulting in a total of 12 quality indicators. Two measures pertained to patient education and five to diagnosis, including discussing treatment options with risk and benefits and using the most recent version of the Chicago Classification to define achalasia phenotypes, respectively. Other indicators pertained to treatment options, such as the use of botulinum toxin for those not considered surgical candidates and management of reflux following achalasia treatment.Conclusions & InferencesUsing a robust methodology, achalasia quality indicators were identified, which can form the basis for establishing quality gaps and generating fully specified quality measures.

Abstract Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty‐two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two‐years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Misselwitz et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15658.

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.

Clinical history, questionnaire data and response to antisecretory therapy are insufficient to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD in isolation, but are of value in determining need for further investigation. Conclusive evidence for reflux on oesophageal testing include advanced grade erosive oesophagitis (LA grades C and D), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal oesophageal acid exposure time (AET) >6% on ambulatory pH or pH-impedance monitoring. A normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, but provides supportive evidence refuting GERD in conjunction with distal AET <4% and <40 reflux episodes on pH-impedance monitoring off proton pump inhibitors. Reflux-symptom association on ambulatory reflux monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux triggered symptoms, and may predict a better treatment outcome when present. When endoscopy and pH or pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (histopathology scores, dilated intercellular spaces), motor evaluation (hypotensive lower oesophageal sphincter, hiatus hernia and oesophageal body hypomotility on high-resolution manometry) and novel impedance metrics (baseline impedance, postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index) can add confidence for a GERD diagnosis; however, diagnosis cannot be based on these findings alone. An assessment of anatomy, motor function, reflux burden and symptomatic phenotype will therefore help direct management. Future GERD management strategies should focus on defining individual patient phenotypes based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the oesophagogastric junction and psychometrics defining symptomatic presentations.

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.