Clinical impact of different cut-off values in high-resolution manometry systems on diagnosing esophageal motility disorders.
Chicago classification
High-resolution manometry
ManoScan
Reference values
Starlet
Journal
Journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 1435-5922
Titre abrégé: J Gastroenterol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9430794
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
11
02
2019
accepted:
31
07
2019
pubmed:
8
8
2019
medline:
30
9
2020
entrez:
8
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The values of the parameters in the Chicago classification measured by a high-resolution manometry (HRM) system with the Unisensor catheter (Starlet) are significantly different from those measured by the ManoScan. The contraction vigor is categorized by values of the distal contractile integral (DCI) in the Chicago classification v3.0; however, reference values of the DCI in the Starlet and the clinical impact of the different reference values in the Starlet and ManoScan on diagnosing esophageal motility disorders are not known. We evaluated data from a previous report in which ManoScan and Starlet were compared in the same subjects. The DCI values in each system were compared and reference DCI values were calculated. Moreover, diagnoses assessed by Starlet using reference values in ManoScan were compared with those using calculated reference values and those assessed by ManoScan. There was a significant positive correlation between the DCI values measured by ManoScan and those measured by Starlet (r = 0.80, p < 0.01). Based on a linear functional relationship considering measurement errors, the reference DCI values for diagnosing failed, weak and hypercontractile contraction vigor were calculated as 590.6, 1011.3 and 10,085.8 mmHg-s-cm, respectively, in the Starlet. Therefore, the proposed reference values in the Starlet were 500, 1000 and 10,000 mmHg-s-cm, respectively. When the reference values in the ManoScan were used in the Starlet data, approximately 30% of subjects were diagnosed inappropriately. This issue was resolved using the proposed reference values in the Starlet. Recognizing systemic differences in HRM systems is important.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The values of the parameters in the Chicago classification measured by a high-resolution manometry (HRM) system with the Unisensor catheter (Starlet) are significantly different from those measured by the ManoScan. The contraction vigor is categorized by values of the distal contractile integral (DCI) in the Chicago classification v3.0; however, reference values of the DCI in the Starlet and the clinical impact of the different reference values in the Starlet and ManoScan on diagnosing esophageal motility disorders are not known.
METHODS
METHODS
We evaluated data from a previous report in which ManoScan and Starlet were compared in the same subjects. The DCI values in each system were compared and reference DCI values were calculated. Moreover, diagnoses assessed by Starlet using reference values in ManoScan were compared with those using calculated reference values and those assessed by ManoScan.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was a significant positive correlation between the DCI values measured by ManoScan and those measured by Starlet (r = 0.80, p < 0.01). Based on a linear functional relationship considering measurement errors, the reference DCI values for diagnosing failed, weak and hypercontractile contraction vigor were calculated as 590.6, 1011.3 and 10,085.8 mmHg-s-cm, respectively, in the Starlet. Therefore, the proposed reference values in the Starlet were 500, 1000 and 10,000 mmHg-s-cm, respectively. When the reference values in the ManoScan were used in the Starlet data, approximately 30% of subjects were diagnosed inappropriately. This issue was resolved using the proposed reference values in the Starlet.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Recognizing systemic differences in HRM systems is important.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31388756
doi: 10.1007/s00535-019-01608-3
pii: 10.1007/s00535-019-01608-3
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1078-1082Références
J Gastroenterol. 2004 Sep;39(9):888-91
pubmed: 15565409
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015 Feb;27(2):160-74
pubmed: 25469569
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015 Feb;27(2):188-94
pubmed: 25271562
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Oct;28(10):1611-5
pubmed: 23730912
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013 Sep;25(9):762-e579
pubmed: 23803156
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jan;103(1):27-37
pubmed: 17900331
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012 Mar;24 Suppl 1:57-65
pubmed: 22248109
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015 Feb;27(2):285-92
pubmed: 25557525