Show simple item record

In ineffective esophageal motility, failed swallows are more functionally relevant than weak swallows

dc.contributor.authorJain, A.
dc.contributor.authorBaker, J. R.
dc.contributor.authorChen, J. W.
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-11T18:00:56Z
dc.date.available2019-08-01T19:53:23Zen
dc.date.issued2018-06
dc.identifier.citationJain, A.; Baker, J. R.; Chen, J. W. (2018). "In ineffective esophageal motility, failed swallows are more functionally relevant than weak swallows." Neurogastroenterology & Motility 30(6): n/a-n/a.
dc.identifier.issn1350-1925
dc.identifier.issn1365-2982
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/144316
dc.description.abstractBackgroundEsophageal pressure topography (EPT) diagnosis of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) can be non‐specific with unclear clinical significance.AimsTo determine whether peristaltic vigor or lower esophageal sphincter (LES) integrity is associated with poor clearance and acid reflux in IEM.MethodsBolus clearance on high‐resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) and available reflux studies in patients with IEM were retrospectively reviewed. Bolus clearance was assessed using both line tracing and colored contour methods on HRIM. EPT parameters, bolus clearance, and acid reflux variables were explored.Key ResultsEighty‐eight patients with IEM were included. Bolus clearance occurred in 71% of all swallows, and 55.7% of patients had complete bolus transit (CBT, bolus clearance in ≥80% of swallows). Bolus clearance was impaired in swallows with distal contractile integral (DCI) <100 mmHg•cm•s compared to DCI 100‐450 (0.43 vs 0.79, P < .0001). A cutoff at DCI 100 mmHg•cm•s was associated with clearance with an accuracy of 76% compared to 49% at DCI 450 (P = .0001 for both). A median DCI <100 was associated with a higher Eckardt score (9 vs 3, P = .03), and on reflux testing available in 47 patients, with abnormal acid exposure time (P = .002). Peristaltic reserve (PR) defined as (DCI of multiple rapid swallow/median DCI of wet swallows), integrated relaxation pressure, and resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure were not associated with clearance or acid exposure.Conclusions & InferencesFailed peristalsis, as defined by DCI <100 mmHg•cm•s, is associated with impaired bolus clearance and more severe dysphagia in IEM, and likely abnormal acid exposure.Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is an esophageal motility disorder with unclear clinical implications. We assess bolus transit, acid exposure, and symptoms in IEM. IEM with a distal contractile integral <100 mmHg•cm•s is associated with impaired bolus clearance and a higher degree of dysphagia.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.othermotility
dc.subject.otheresophagus
dc.subject.otherGERD
dc.subject.otherimpedance
dc.subject.othermanometry
dc.titleIn ineffective esophageal motility, failed swallows are more functionally relevant than weak swallows
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialties
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144316/1/nmo13297.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144316/2/nmo13297_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/nmo.13297
dc.identifier.sourceNeurogastroenterology & Motility
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoman S, Pandolfino JE, Chen J, Boris L, Luger D, Kahrilas PJ. Phenotypes and clinical context of hypercontractility in high‐resolution esophageal pressure topography (EPT). Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: 37 ‐ 45.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceXiao Y, Kahrilas PJ, Kwasny MJ, et al. High‐resolution manometry correlates of ineffective esophageal motility. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: 1647 ‐ 1654.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbdel Jalil AA, Castell DO. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM): the old‐new frontier in esophagology. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016; 18: 1.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRavi K, Friesen L, Issaka R, Kahrilas PJ, Pandolfino JE. Long‐term outcomes of patients with normal or minor motor function abnormalities detected by high‐resolution esophageal manometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 1416 ‐ 1423.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChen JH. Ineffective esophageal motility and the vagus: current challenges and future prospects. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2016; 9: 291 ‐ 299.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgrawal A, Hila A, Tutuian R, Mainie I, Castell DO. Bethanechol improves smooth muscle function in patients with severe ineffective esophageal motility. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007; 41: 366 ‐ 370.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBroeders JA, Sportel IG, Jamieson GG, et al. Impact of ineffective oesophageal motility and wrap type on dysphagia after laparoscopic fundoplication. Br J Surg. 2011; 98: 1414 ‐ 1421.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015; 27: 160 ‐ 174.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMin YW, Shin I, Son HJ, Rhee PL. Multiple rapid swallow maneuver enhances the clinical utility of high‐resolution manometry in patients showing ineffective esophageal motility. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94: e1669.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHiestand M, Abdel Jalil A, Castell DO. Manometric subtypes of ineffective esophageal motility. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2017; 8: e78.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMello MD, Shriver AR, Li Y, Patel A, Gyawali CP. Ineffective esophageal motility phenotypes following fundoplication in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016; 28: 292 ‐ 298.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShaker A, Stoikes N, Drapekin J, Kushnir V, Brunt LM, Gyawali CP. Multiple rapid swallow responses during esophageal high‐resolution manometry reflect esophageal body peristaltic reserve. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013; 108: 1706 ‐ 1712.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJunginger T, Kneist W, Sultanov F, Eckardt VF. [Long‐term outcome of myotomy and semi‐fundoplication in achalasia]. Chirurg. 2002; 73: 704 ‐ 709.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJonasson C, Wernersson B, Hoff DA, Hatlebakk JG. Validation of the GerdQ questionnaire for the diagnosis of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013; 37: 564 ‐ 572.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePark MI. Recent concept in interpreting high‐resolution manometry. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010; 16: 90 ‐ 93.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSifrim D, Castell D, Dent J, Kahrilas PJ. Gastro‐oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non‐acid, and gas reflux. Gut. 2004; 53: 1024 ‐ 1031.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatzka DA, Paoletti V, Leite L, Castell DO. Prolonged ambulatory pH monitoring in patients with persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: testing while on therapy identifies the need for more aggressive anti‐reflux therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996; 91: 2110 ‐ 2113.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSrinivasan R, Katz PO, Ramakrishnan A, Katzka DA, Vela MF, Castell DO. Maximal acid reflux control for Barrett’s oesophagus: feasible and effective. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001; 15: 519 ‐ 524.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoya DL, Agrawal A, Freeman JE, Castell DO. Impedance detected abnormal bolus transit in patients with normal esophageal manometry. Sensitive indicator of esophageal functional abnormality? Dis Esophagus. 2008; 21: 563 ‐ 569.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarlson DA, Omari T, Lin Z, et al. High‐resolution impedance manometry parameters enhance the esophageal motility evaluation in non‐obstructive dysphagia patients without a major Chicago Classification motility disorder. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2017; 29. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12941
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOmari TI, Szczesniak MM, Maclean J, et al. Correlation of esophageal pressure‐flow analysis findings with bolus transit patterns on videofluoroscopy. Dis Esophagus. 2016; 29: 166 ‐ 173.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJain A, Baker JR, Rubenstein JH, Chen JW. Bolus clearance in esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction is associated with strength of peristalsis. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13093
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKahrilas PJ, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, Kern M, Arndorfer RC, Reece A. Esophageal peristaltic dysfunction in peptic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 1986; 91: 897 ‐ 904.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeite LP, Johnston BT, Barrett J, Castell JA, Castell DO. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM): the primary finding in patients with nonspecific esophageal motility disorder. Dig Dis Sci. 1997; 42: 1859 ‐ 1865.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTutuian R, Vela MF, Balaji NS, et al. Esophageal function testing with combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and manometry: multicenter study in healthy volunteers. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003; 1: 174 ‐ 182.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTutuian R, Castell DO. Clarification of the esophageal function defect in patients with manometric ineffective esophageal motility: studies using combined impedance‐manometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004; 2: 230 ‐ 236.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTutuian R, Castell DO. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and manometry clarifies esophageal function abnormalities: study in 350 patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99: 1011 ‐ 1019.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlonski W, Vela M, Safder A, Hila A, Castell DO. Revised criterion for diagnosis of ineffective esophageal motility is associated with more frequent dysphagia and greater bolus transit abnormalities. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103: 699 ‐ 704.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKim KY, Kim GH, Kim DU, et al. Is ineffective esophageal motility associated with gastropharyngeal reflux disease? World J Gastroenterol. 2008; 14: 6030 ‐ 6035.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVinjirayer E, Gonzalez B, Brensinger C, et al. Ineffective motility is not a marker for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98: 771 ‐ 776.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.