Vela, Marcelo F.

Abstract Introduction Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a common finding on high resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) and is often of unclear clinical significance as its impact on dysphagia and bolus transit is variable. Multiple rapid swallow (MRS) testing is a provocative maneuver performed during HRM that assesses peristaltic reserve, documented by the presence of contractile augmentation (defined by contractile vigor after MRS greater than that seen with single swallows). Lack of augmentation after MRS is associated with dysphagia after anti-reflux surgery. To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of peristaltic reserve on dysphagia and bolus transit in IEM patients. Methods Retrospective review of 159 patients with Chicago classification 4.0 IEM. 52 patients were excluded due to prior esophageal surgery, technically inadequate MRS, or concomitant esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Demographics and brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire (BEDQ) results were obtained from a prospectively maintained database. MRS and bolus transit data were analyzed using a commercially available software. Impedance analysis documented complete versus incomplete bolus transit. Augmentation was defined as the ratio of post-MRS DCI to mean single swallow DCI > 1. Fisher's exact test for continuous data and linear model ANOVA were used to assess for statistical significance. Results 107 IEM patients were included, 46 of them had loss of peristaltic reserve (no augmentation on MRS). Compared to IEM patients with augmentation, those without augmentation had more severe dysphagia documented by higher mean BEDQ score (6.8 versus 4.8, p= 0.045), and increased rates of impaired bolus transit (73% versus 55%, p-= 0.013). Discussion IEM patients without augmentation on MRS have more severe dysphagia and more frequent incomplete bolus clearance. These findings support adding MRS response to the diagnosis of IEM or using it to describe a subset of patients with more severe disease.

AbstractBackground and PurposeIneffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most frequently diagnosed esophageal motility abnormality and characterized by diminished esophageal peristaltic vigor and frequent weak, absent, and/or fragmented peristalsis on high‐resolution esophageal manometry. Despite its commonplace occurrence, this condition can often provoke uncertainty for both patients and clinicians. Although the diagnostic criteria used to define this condition has generally become more stringent over time, it is unclear whether the updated criteria result in a more precise clinical diagnosis. While IEM is often implicated with symptoms of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, the strength of these associations remains unclear. In this review, we share a practical approach to IEM highlighting its definition and evolution over time, commonly associated clinical symptoms, and important management and treatment considerations. We also share the significance of this condition in patients undergoing evaluation for anti‐reflux surgery and consideration for lung transplantation.

Goals: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). Background: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging. Study: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process. Results: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2’s virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient’s presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning. Conclusion: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be challenging given varying symptom presentations, and complex multifactorial pathophysiology. The gold standard for GERD diagnosis is esophageal acid exposure time (AET) measured by pH‐metry. A variety of additional diagnostic tools are available. The goal of this consensus was to assess the individual merits of GERD diagnostic tools based on current evidence, and provide consensus recommendations following discussion and voting by experts.MethodsThis consensus was developed by 15 experts from nine countries, based on a systematic search of the literature, using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) methodology to assess the quality and strength of the evidence, and provide recommendations regarding the diagnostic utility of different GERD diagnosis tools, using AET as the reference standard.Key ResultsA proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial is appropriate for patients with heartburn and no alarm symptoms, but nor for patients with regurgitation, chest pain, or extraesophageal presentations. Severe erosive esophagitis and abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI are clearly indicative of GERD. Esophagram, esophageal biopsies, laryngoscopy, and pharyngeal pH monitoring are not recommended to diagnose GERD. Patients with PPI‐refractory symptoms and normal endoscopy require reflux monitoring by pH or pH‐impedance to confirm or exclude GERD, and identify treatment failure mechanisms. GERD confounders need to be considered in some patients, pH‐impedance can identify supragrastric belching, impedance‐manometry can diagnose rumination.ConclusionsErosive esophagitis on endoscopy and abnormal pH or pH‐impedance monitoring are the most appropriate methods to establish a diagnosis of GERD. Other tools may add useful complementary information.

Gastrointestinal (GI) amyloidosis can be acquired or genetic and is commonly caused by chronic inflammatory illnesses (AA amyloidosis), haematological malignancies (AL amyloidosis) and end-stage renal disease (beta-2 microglobulin amyloidosis). The accumulation of these aberrant proteins disrupts the structures and functions of many organs; the least common of which is the GI tract. GI presentations depend on the type, location and amount of amyloid deposition. Symptoms can range from nausea and vomiting to fatal GI bleeds. Pathological examination of the involved tissue with characteristic green birefringence under polarised light is used to confirm the diagnosis. Patients should be considered for further evaluation to rule out additional organ involvement, notably cardiac and renal. We present a patient with amyloidosis-induced gastroparesis, an under-recognised presentation of systemic amyloidosis in the gastroenterology system.

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.

AbstractOpioids are well known to cause adverse effects on the gastrointestinal tract including nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Data regarding how opioids affect the esophagus are more limited. Opioid‐induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED) is a clinical syndrome defined by chronic opioid use (≥3 months), esophageal symptoms (mainly dysphagia), and esophageal motility abnormalities diagnosed by manometry including achalasia type III, hypercontractile esophagus, distal esophageal spasm, and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Up until now, the effect of opioids on esophageal motility assessed by the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) had not been described. In this issue of NGM, Patel et al. report that FLIP assessment in patients with esophageal symptoms showed that chronic opioid users have a significant increase in repetitive retrograde contractions, but no significant reduction in distensibility at the esophagogastric junction compared to non‐users. Additionally, perceptive symptoms were higher, and quality of life metrics were lower in the chronic opioid users. This review article will discuss our current understanding of OIED and provide context for this latest study in chronic opioid users. Further investigation with larger prospective studies is needed to understand the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of OIED.

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.