Katzka, David A.

AbstractBackgroundRumination syndrome is a functional gastrointestinal disorder characterized by effortless and repetitive regurgitation of recently ingested food from the stomach to the oral cavity followed by either re‐swallowing or spitting. Rumination is thought to occur due to a reversal of the esophagogastric pressure gradient. This is achieved by a coordinated abdominothoracic maneuver consisting of a thoracic suction, crural diaphragm relaxation and an increase in intragastric pressure. Careful history is important in the diagnosis of rumination syndrome; patients often report “vomiting” or “reflux” and the diagnosis can therefore be missed. Objective testing is available with high resolution manometry or gastroduodenal manometry. Increase in intra‐gastric pressure followed by regurgitation is the most important characteristic to distinguish rumination from other disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux. The mainstay of the treatment of rumination syndrome is behavioral therapy via diaphragmatic breathing in addition to patient education and reassurance.PurposeThe purpose of this review was to critically appraise recent key developments in the pathophysiology, diagnosis and therapy for rumination syndrome. A literature search using OVID (Wolters Kluwer Health, New York, NY, USA) to examine the MEDLINE database its inception until May 2016 was performed using the search terms “rumination syndrome,” “biofeedback therapy,” and “regurgitation.” References lists and personal libraries of the authors were used to identify supplemental information. Articles published in English were reviewed in full text. English abstracts were reviewed for all other languages. Priority was given to evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials when possible.

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.

SummaryBackgroundThe proportion of oesophageal adenocarcinoma that is detected concurrently with initial Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis is not well studied.AimTo compare the proportion of prevalent adenocarcinoma vs. incident adenocarcinoma found during surveillance of Barrett's.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science (from their inception to 31 May 2015) for cohort studies in adults with Barrett's (nondysplastic Barrett's ± Barrett's with low‐grade dysplasia) with minimum average follow‐up of 3 years, and providing numbers of prevalent adenocarcinoma detected (concurrently with Barrett's diagnosis and up to 1 year afterwards) vs. incident adenocarcinoma detected (greater than 1 year after Barrett's diagnosis). Pooled weighted proportions of prevalent and incident adenocarcinoma were calculated, using a random effects model.ResultsOn meta‐analysis of 13 studies reporting on 603 adenocarcinomas in 9657 Barrett's patients, 85.1% of adenocarcinomas were classified as prevalent [95% confidence interval (CI), 78.1–90.2%) and 14.9% as incident (95% CI, 9.8–21.9%), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 66%). Among nine studies reporting on 787 high‐grade dysplasia and oesophageal adenocarcinomas in 8098 Barrett's patients, the proportion of prevalent high‐grade dysplasia‐oesophageal adenocarcinoma was similar at 80.5% (95% CI, 68.1–88.8%, I2 = 87%). These results remained stable across multiple subgroup analyses including study quality, setting, duration of follow‐up and presence of baseline dysplasia.ConclusionsIn our meta‐analysis, four of five patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma or high‐grade dysplasia at index endoscopy or within 1 year of Barrett's follow‐up were considered to be prevalent cases. Continued efforts are needed to identify patients with Barrett's before the development of adenocarcinoma.

Summary Background To date there have been no clear features that aid in differentiating patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) from PPI ‐responsive oesophageal eosinophilia ( PPI ‐ REE ). However, barium swallow roentgenography is a more sensitive and specific measure to detect subtle fibrostenotic remodeling changes present in EoE. We aim to characterise any clinical, endoscopic, histiological or barium roentgenographic differences between EoE and PPI ‐ REE . Aim To characterise any clinical, endoscopic, histiological or barium roentgenographic differences between EoE and PPI ‐ REE . Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis on data collected from a tertiary referral centre population from 2010 to 2015. Data from 66 patients with EoE and 28 patients with PPI ‐ REE were analysed. Cases were adults who met consensus guidelines for EOE , and had a barium swallow study within 6 months of the index endoscopy. Clinical, endoscopic, histiological and barium swallow findings were collected. Results Patients with EoE reported similar characteristics as PPI ‐ REE patients, except EoE patients were younger (35.6 vs. 46.6 years; P = 0.011), had earlier symptom onset (29.0 vs. 38.0 years; P = 0.026), and smaller oesophageal diameters on barium swallow (19.5 mm vs. 20; P = 0.042). Patients with EoE were more likely to have distal strictures (EoE 77% vs. 25%; P = 0.02) and, importantly, a greater likelihood of small calibre oesophagus (51.5% vs. 17.9%; P = 0.002). Moreover, EoE patients had a higher probability of developing small calibre oesophagus after 20 years of symptoms (72.3% vs. 30.2%; P = 0.074) compared to PPI ‐ REE patients. Conclusions When compared with eosinophilic oesophagitis, PPI ‐ REE patients demonstrate findings that suggest PPI‐responsive oesophageal eosinophilia to be a later onset, less aggressive form of oesophageal stricturing disease than eosinophilic oesophagitis.

Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish GORD from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called ‘PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia’ (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histological features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that patients with PPI-REE and patients with EoE at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable and have a significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in patients with PPI-REE, similar to the effects of topical steroids in patients with EoE. Additionally, recent series have reported that patients with EoE responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunological mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histological features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some patients with EoE respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated.

AbstractBackgroundWhile high resolution esophageal manometry combined with impedancometry has demonstrated that gastric pressurizations lead to rumination, the contribution of upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) function to rumination is unclear. Behavioral therapy with diaphragmatic breathing (DB) can reduce rumination. We aimed to evaluate the pressures in the stomach, EGJ and UES during rumination and the effects of DB augmented with biofeedback therapy.MethodsSixteen patients with rumination were studied with manometry and impedancometry before and after a meal. The postprandial assessment comprised three periods: before, during, and after DB augmented with biofeedback therapy.Key ResultsAll patients had postprandial rumination, which was associated (p < 0.001) with increased gastric pressure and reversal of the postprandial gastroesophageal pressure gradient from −4 (−43 to 18) before to 20 (7–79) mmHg during rumination. The EGJ pressure was lower (p < 0.001) during gastric pressurizations that were associated with rumination vs those that were not. The UES also relaxed, almost completely, during rumination. Patients had a median (range) of 5 (2–10) rumination episodes before, 1 (0–2) (p < 0.001) during, and 3 (1–5) after (p < 0.001 vs during) diaphragmatic breathing. During manometry and impedancometry, DB was well‐tolerated and learned within 5 min. Diaphragmatic breathing increased EGJ pressure (p < 0.001) and restored a negative gastroesophageal pressure gradient (−20 mmHg [−80 to 7]).Conclusions & InferencesDiaphragmatic breathing aided with high resolution esophageal manometry is well‐tolerated, effective and averts the gastroesophageal pressure disturbance that leads to rumination.