Ineffective esophageal motility in Chicago Classification version 4.0 better predicts abnormal acid exposure.
Esophageal motility disorders
Gastroesophageal reflux
Manometry
Journal
Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society
ISSN: 1612-9067
Titre abrégé: Esophagus
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101206627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
15
04
2021
accepted:
29
07
2021
pubmed:
12
8
2021
medline:
29
3
2022
entrez:
11
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The updated Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) establishes a more stringent criteria to diagnose ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). This study aims to investigate the clinical significance of IEM in CCv4.0 in the context of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). A retrospective study was conducted among suspected GERD patients who had heartburn and/or regurgitation as their chief complaints and completed esophageal function tests in our center from 2017 to 2019. Patients were further grouped as "CCv3.0 IEM" and normal motility according to Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and as "CCv4.0 IEM" and normal motility according to CCv4.0. The clinical characteristics, high-resolution manometry, esophageal reflux monitoring, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) efficacy were compared between different groups. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify esophageal motility parameters associated with reflux burden and symptom outcome. Of 172 subjects included, 93 patients were identified as CCv3.0 IEM, 69 as CCv4.0 IEM. IEM in either version was concomitant with elevated acid burden and impaired esophageal clearance as compared to normal motility in corresponding diagnostic criteria, while the only presence of IEM in CCv4.0 was predictive to abnormal acid exposure (AET > 6%: OR = 2.66, 95% CI [1.27-5.56], p < 0.01). The presence of "CCv3.0 IEM" and low EGJ-CI (EGJ-CI < 39.1 mmHg·cm) had no added value in predicting increased reflux burden. No interaction effect was found between the presence of IEM and a weakened EGJ. None of the manometric variables was capable of predicting PPI response. Stringent criteria of IEM in CCv4.0 can better predict abnormal acid exposure as compared to CCv3.0.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The updated Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) establishes a more stringent criteria to diagnose ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). This study aims to investigate the clinical significance of IEM in CCv4.0 in the context of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
METHODS
A retrospective study was conducted among suspected GERD patients who had heartburn and/or regurgitation as their chief complaints and completed esophageal function tests in our center from 2017 to 2019. Patients were further grouped as "CCv3.0 IEM" and normal motility according to Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and as "CCv4.0 IEM" and normal motility according to CCv4.0. The clinical characteristics, high-resolution manometry, esophageal reflux monitoring, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) efficacy were compared between different groups. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify esophageal motility parameters associated with reflux burden and symptom outcome.
RESULTS
Of 172 subjects included, 93 patients were identified as CCv3.0 IEM, 69 as CCv4.0 IEM. IEM in either version was concomitant with elevated acid burden and impaired esophageal clearance as compared to normal motility in corresponding diagnostic criteria, while the only presence of IEM in CCv4.0 was predictive to abnormal acid exposure (AET > 6%: OR = 2.66, 95% CI [1.27-5.56], p < 0.01). The presence of "CCv3.0 IEM" and low EGJ-CI (EGJ-CI < 39.1 mmHg·cm) had no added value in predicting increased reflux burden. No interaction effect was found between the presence of IEM and a weakened EGJ. None of the manometric variables was capable of predicting PPI response.
CONCLUSIONS
Stringent criteria of IEM in CCv4.0 can better predict abnormal acid exposure as compared to CCv3.0.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34378104
doi: 10.1007/s10388-021-00867-5
pii: 10.1007/s10388-021-00867-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
197-203Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Japan Esophageal Society.
Références
Tutuian R, Castell DO. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and manometry clarifies esophageal function abnormalities: study in 350 patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(6):1011–9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30035.x
Boland K, Abdul-Hussein M, Tutuian R, et al. Characteristics of consecutive esophageal motility diagnoses after a decade of change. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50(4):301–6.
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000402
Savarino E, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. Expert consensus document: advances in the physiological assessment and diagnosis of GERD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14(11):665–76.
doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.130
Liu L, Li S, Zhu K, et al. Relationship between esophageal motility and severity of gastroesophageal reflux disease according to the Los Angeles classification. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(19):e15543.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015543
Savarino E, Gemignani L, Pohl D, et al. Oesophageal motility and bolus transit abnormalities increase in parallel with the severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34(4):476–86.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04742.x
Bazin C, Benezech A, Alessandrini M, et al. Esophageal motor disorders are a strong and independant associated factor of Barrett’s esophagus. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;24(2):216–25.
doi: 10.5056/jnm17090
Rogers BD, Rengarajan A, Mauro A, et al. Fragmented and failed swallows on esophageal high-resolution manometry associate with abnormal reflux burden better than weak swallows. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;32(2):e13736.
pubmed: 31574208
pmcid: 31574208
Rengarajan A, Bolkhir A, Gor P, et al. Esophagogastric junction and esophageal body contraction metrics on high-resolution manometry predict esophageal acid burden. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30(5):e13267.
doi: 10.1111/nmo.13267
Jain A, Baker JR, Chen JW. In ineffective esophageal motility, failed swallows are more functionally relevant than weak swallows. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30(6):e13297.
doi: 10.1111/nmo.13297
Dao HV, Matsumura T, Kaneko T, et al. Impact of ineffective esophageal motility on chemical clearance in patients with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Dis Esophagus. 2020;33(9):doaa026.
doi: 10.1093/dote/doaa026
Reddy CA, Baker JR, Lau J, et al. High-resolution manometry diagnosis of ineffective esophageal motility is associated with higher reflux burden. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(8):2199–205.
doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05633-3
Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(2):160–74.
doi: 10.1111/nmo.12477
Yadlapati R, Kahrilas PJ, Fox MR, et al. Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 40((c)). Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33(1):e14058.
pubmed: 33373111
pmcid: 33373111
Rogers BD, Rengarajan A, Abrahao L, et al. Esophagogastric junction morphology and contractile integral on high-resolution manometry in asymptomatic healthy volunteers: an international multicenter study. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020;33:e14009.
pubmed: 33094875
pmcid: 33094875
Gor P, Li Y, Munigala S, et al. Interrogation of esophagogastric junction barrier function using the esophagogastric junction contractile integral: an observational cohort study. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29(7):820–8.
doi: 10.1111/dote.12389
Gyawali C, Kahrilas P, Savarino E, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus. Gut. 2018;67(7):1351–62.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722
Andersson T, Alfredsson L, Kallberg H, et al. Calculating measures of biological interaction. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20(7):575–9.
doi: 10.1007/s10654-005-7835-x
Rogers BD, Rengarajan A, Ribolsi M, et al. Postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index from pH-impedance monitoring associates with esophageal body motility and esophageal acid burden. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33(2):13973.
doi: 10.1111/nmo.13973
Wang D, Wang X, Yu Y, et al. Assessment of esophageal motor disorders using high-resolution manometry in esophageal dysphagia with normal endoscopy. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;25(1):61–7.
doi: 10.5056/jnm18042
Liu Z, Liao J, Tian D, et al. Assessment of esophageal high-resolution impedance manometry in patients with nonobstructive dysphagia. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018;2018:6272515.
pubmed: 29853862
pmcid: 29853862
Simren M, Silny J, Holloway R, et al. Relevance of ineffective oesophageal motility during oesophageal acid clearance. Gut. 2003;52(6):784–90.
doi: 10.1136/gut.52.6.784
Rengarajan A, Gyawali CP. High-resolution manometry can characterize esophagogastric junction morphology and predict esophageal reflux burden. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020;54(1):22–7.
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001205
van Hoeij FB, Smout AJ, Bredenoord AJ. Predictive value of routine esophageal high-resolution manometry for gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(7):963–70.
doi: 10.1111/nmo.12570
Tolone S, De Bortoli N, Marabotto E, et al. Esophagogastric junction contractility for clinical assessment in patients with GERD: a real added value? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(10):1423–31.
doi: 10.1111/nmo.12638
Masuda T, Mittal SK, Kovacs B, et al. Simple manometric index for comprehensive esophagogastric junction barrier competency against gastroesophageal reflux. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230(5):744–55.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.01.034
Chen CL, Yi CH, Liu TT, et al. Effects of mosapride on secondary peristalsis in patients with ineffective esophageal motility. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2013;48(12):1363–70.
doi: 10.3109/00365521.2013.840856
Lei WY, Hung JS, Liu TT, et al. Influence of prucalopride on esophageal secondary peristalsis in reflux patients with ineffective motility. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(3):650–5.
doi: 10.1111/jgh.13986
Sifrim D, Roman S, Savarino E, et al. Normal values and regional differences in oesophageal impedance-pH metrics: a consensus analysis of impedance-pH studies from around the world. Gut. 2020;70:1441.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322627