Effects of Age on Esophageal Motility: A High-Resolution Manometry Study.
Aging
Esophageal motility disorders
Esophagus
Manometry
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine research
ISSN: 1918-3003
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101538301
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
06
08
2021
accepted:
20
08
2021
entrez:
16
9
2021
pubmed:
17
9
2021
medline:
17
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Studies have found possible physiologic changes to esophageal motility with aging currently not taken into account in routine high-resolution manometry (HRM) interpretation. We aimed to quantify the relationship between these physiologic changes and aging to improve HRM interpretation. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent HRM at a tertiary hospital center between 2015 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were patients aged ≥18 years with normal HRM. Exclusion criteria were abnormal HRM, abnormal upper digestive endoscopy or imagery. Outcomes were median integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, distal contractal integral (DCI), distal latency (DL), and peristaltic break (PB) according to the v4.0 Chicago classification criteria. Effect of age was examined through univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis. We identified 1,917 patients with HRM and included 722 patients with normal exams (median age 56 years (interquartile range (IQR) 46 - 66), 63.8% female). Indications for HRM included dysphagia (39.6%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (29.5%), and chest pain (11.5%). There was statistically significant relationship between age and IRP (r = 0.20, P < 0.0001) as well as DCI (r = 0.12, P = 0.001) and DL (r = -0.09, P = 0.02). No statistically significant relationship was found between age and LES pressure or PB. We found that IRP, DCI, and to a lesser extent, DL, are significantly correlated with the normal aging process in symptomatic patients. These findings should be taken into consideration when interpreting esophageal HRM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Studies have found possible physiologic changes to esophageal motility with aging currently not taken into account in routine high-resolution manometry (HRM) interpretation. We aimed to quantify the relationship between these physiologic changes and aging to improve HRM interpretation.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent HRM at a tertiary hospital center between 2015 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were patients aged ≥18 years with normal HRM. Exclusion criteria were abnormal HRM, abnormal upper digestive endoscopy or imagery. Outcomes were median integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, distal contractal integral (DCI), distal latency (DL), and peristaltic break (PB) according to the v4.0 Chicago classification criteria. Effect of age was examined through univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 1,917 patients with HRM and included 722 patients with normal exams (median age 56 years (interquartile range (IQR) 46 - 66), 63.8% female). Indications for HRM included dysphagia (39.6%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (29.5%), and chest pain (11.5%). There was statistically significant relationship between age and IRP (r = 0.20, P < 0.0001) as well as DCI (r = 0.12, P = 0.001) and DL (r = -0.09, P = 0.02). No statistically significant relationship was found between age and LES pressure or PB.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We found that IRP, DCI, and to a lesser extent, DL, are significantly correlated with the normal aging process in symptomatic patients. These findings should be taken into consideration when interpreting esophageal HRM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34527096
doi: 10.14740/jocmr4576
pmc: PMC8425793
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
413-419Informations de copyright
Copyright 2021, Djinbachian et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None to declare.
Références
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014 May;26(5):654-9
pubmed: 24533917
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015 Feb;27(2):246-57
pubmed: 25521290
J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2014 Sep;23(3):243-8
pubmed: 25267950
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2007 Oct;293(4):G878-85
pubmed: 17690172
Digestion. 2015;91(3):181-6
pubmed: 25765546
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jun;53(6):643-649
pubmed: 29848163
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Mar 14;17(10):1326-31
pubmed: 21455332
J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017 Apr 30;23(2):229-236
pubmed: 28163259
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021 Jan;33(1):e14058
pubmed: 33373111
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011 Jun;23(6):509-e198
pubmed: 21342362
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013 Sep;25(9):762-e579
pubmed: 23803156
Dis Esophagus. 2013 Sep-Oct;26(7):651-60
pubmed: 23383676