Katzka, David A.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed if obesity perturbs the esophageal epithelial barrier function independent of promotion of gastroesophageal reflux (GER). METHODS: Thirty-eight participants were divided into 4 groups: Obesity−/GER–, Obesity+/GER−, Obesity−/GER+, and Obesity+/GER+. Esophageal intercellular space and desmosome density (structural integrity) and fluorescein leak (functional integrity) were measured. RESULTS: The Obesity+/GER− group demonstrated increased intercellular space, reduced desmosome density, and increased fluorescein leak compared with control subjects. These changes were similar but not additive to findings seen in Obesity−/GER + and Obesity+/GER+ patients. DISCUSSION: Central obesity impairs structural and functional integrity of the esophageal barrier independent of GER, likely predisposing to esophageal injury.

Abstract Disparities in medical treatment related to differences in race, gender, and creed are present in all fields of practice. This a complex issue requires multiple perspectives to gain advancements in patient care. This editorial examines the recently published article uses the GI Quality Improving Consortium to investigate disparities in adherence to quality indicators in Barrett's esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal epidermoid metaplasia (EEM) is a rare disease. METHODS: Patients with EEM diagnosed between 2014 and 2020 were reviewed. RESULTS: Forty EEM cases were identified. EEM occurred in 9 (23%) patients before, concordant, or after esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). EEM was associated with previous esophageal lichen planus in 5 patients, Barrett's esophagus 7, and esophageal adenocarcinoma 1. EEM was focal in 28 (70%) or diffuse in 12 (30%) and not detected in 45% on recent previous endoscopy. DISCUSSION: EEM is a premalignant underrecognized condition associated with multiple conditions. Close follow-up or endoscopic treatment may be warranted because of its ESCC association.

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.

AbstractBackgroundOpioid‐induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED) is a recognized complication of chronic opioid use. However, the impact of acute opioid administration on esophageal motility remains unclear.MethodsOpioid naïve patients with high‐resolution manometry (HRM) <480 min following esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (opioid‐HRM) and a control group with HRM <36 h prior to EGD between January 1, 2016, and November 10, 2018, from a single institution were identified. EGDs were performed exclusively with versed and fentanyl.Key ResultsOne hundred and seventy‐four patients were identified, with 83 (47.7%) opioid‐HRM and 91 (52.3%) controls. Mean time from EGD to HRM was 229 (78–435) min. Baseline clinical features and HRM indications were similar between opioid‐HRM and controls. Chicago classification v3.0 defined HRM findings were similar between groups. Major motility disorders as defined by the Chicago classification v3.0 occurred at a similar frequency among opioid‐HRM and controls (27.7% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.23). Mean distal contractile integrity (DCI) was higher in opioid‐HRM (1939.3 ± 1318.9 vs. 1792.2 ± 2062.3 mmHg∙cm∙s, p = 0.043), but maximum DCI, distal latency, and integrated relaxation pressure did not differ between groups. Subgroup analysis assessing time and dose dependency did not identify differences in individual manometric parameters and Chicago classification v3.0 diagnosis between patients with HRM <240 min after EGD, >240 min after EGD, ≥125 mcg of IV fentanyl, <125 mcg IV fentanyl and controls.Conclusions and InferencesSame‐day acute opioid administration did not affect HRM findings in opioid naïve patients. Studies assessing the pathophysiology of and duration‐dependent relationship with opioids in OIED are needed.

AbstractBackground:Esophageal adenocarcinoma is a lethal cancer with rising incidence. There are limited data in younger (&lt;50 years) patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to assess time trends in the incidence and outcomes of “young-onset” esophageal adenocarcinoma using a population-based database.Methods:We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 9 database to identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma between 1975 and 2015. Patients were stratified into three age strata: &lt;50, 50 to 69, and ≥70 years. Staging was stratified as localized, regional, and distant. Trends in incidence, disease stage, and survival were assessed in three periods (1975–89, 1990–99, and 2000–2015). Univariate and multivariate models were created to identify predictors of mortality.Results:Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence has increased in patients &lt;50 years of age, with an annual percentage change of 2.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.4%–4.4%) from 1975 to 2015. Young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma presented at more advanced stages (regional + distant) compared with older patients (84.9% vs. 67.3%; P &lt; 0.01), with increasing proportion of advanced stages over the study period. These patients also experienced poorer 5-year esophageal adenocarcinoma–free survival compared with older patients (22.9%% vs. 29.6%; P &lt; 0.01), although this finding was attenuated on stage-stratified analysis.Conclusions:Young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma, while uncommon, is rising in incidence. Concerningly, the proportion of advanced disease continues to increase. Young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma also presents at more advanced stages, resulting in poorer esophageal adenocarcinoma–free survival.Impact:Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma younger than 50 years present at more advanced stages with higher esophageal adenocarcinoma–specific mortality compared with older peers. Current diagnostic and management strategies for young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma may need to be reevaluated.