Pandolfino, John E.

Abstract Although neurogastroenterology and motility ( NGM ) disorders are some of the most frequent disorders encountered by practicing gastroenterologists, a structured competency‐based training curriculum developed by NGM experts is lacking. The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society ( ANMS ) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility ( ESNM ) jointly evaluated the components of NGM training in North America and Europe. Eleven training domains were identified within NGM , consisting of functional gastrointestinal disorders, visceral hypersensitivity and pain pathways, motor disorders within anatomic areas (esophagus, stomach, small bowel and colon, anorectum), mucosal disorders (gastro‐esophageal reflux disease, other mucosal disorders), consequences of systemic disease, consequences of therapy (surgery, endoscopic intervention, medications, other therapy), and transition of pediatric patients into adult practice. A 3‐tiered training curriculum covering these domains is proposed here and endorsed by all NGM societies. Tier 1 NGM knowledge and training is expected of all gastroenterology trainees and practicing gastroenterologists. Tier 2 knowledge and training is appropriate for trainees who anticipate NGM disorder management and NGM function test interpretation being an important part of their careers, which may require competency assessment and credentialing of test interpretation skills. Tier 3 knowledge and training is undertaken by trainees interested in a dedicated NGM career and may be restricted to specific domains within the broad NGM field. The joint ANMS and ESNM task force anticipates that the NGM curriculum will streamline NGM training in North America and Europe and will lead to better identification of centers of excellence where Tier 2 and Tier 3 training can be accomplished.

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.

AbstractBackgroundAn international group of experts evaluated and revised recommendations for ambulatory reflux monitoring for the diagnosis of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD).MethodsLiterature search was focused on indications and technical recommendations for GERD testing and phenotypes definitions. Statements were proposed and discussed during several structured meetings.Key ResultsReflux testing should be performed after cessation of acid suppressive medication in patients with a low likelihood of GERD. In this setting, testing can be either catheter‐based or wireless pH‐monitoring or pH‐impedance monitoring. In patients with a high probability of GERD (esophagitis grade C and D, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, peptic stricture, previous positive pH monitoring) and persistent symptoms, pH‐impedance monitoring should be performed on treatment. Recommendations are provided for data acquisition and analysis. Esophageal acid exposure is considered as pathological if acid exposure time (AET) is greater than 6% on pH testing. Number of reflux episodes and baseline impedance are exploratory metrics that may complement AET. Positive symptom reflux association is defined as symptom index (SI) >50% or symptom association probability (SAP) >95%. A positive symptom‐reflux association in the absence of pathological AET defines hypersensitivity to reflux.Conclusions and InferencesThe consensus group determined that grade C or D esophagitis, peptic stricture, histology proven Barrett's mucosa >1 cm, and esophageal acid exposure greater >6% are sufficient to define pathological GERD. Further testing should be considered when none of these criteria are fulfilled.

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.