Literature DB >> 18595138

Ineffective oesophageal motility: manometric subsets exhibit different symptom profiles.

Horst-Gunter Haack1, Ross-David Hansen, Allison Malcolm, John-Edward Kellow.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the demographic and clinical features of different manometric subsets of ineffective oesophageal motility (IOM; defined as > or = 30% wet swallows with distal contractile amplitude < 30 mmHg), and to determine whether the prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux differs between IOM subsets.
METHODS: Clinical characteristics of manometric subsets were determined in 100 IOM patients (73 female, median age 58 years) and compared to those of 100 age-and gender-matched patient controls with oesophageal symptoms, but normal manometry. Supine oesophageal manometry was performed with an eight-channel DentSleeve water-perfused catheter, and an ambulatory pH study assessed gastro-oesophageal reflux.
RESULTS: Patients in the IOM subset featuring a majority of low-amplitude simultaneous contractions (LASC) experienced less heartburn (prevalence 26%), but more dysphagia (57%) than those in the IOM subset featuring low-amplitude propagated contractions (LAP; heartburn 70%, dysphagia 24%; both P < or = 0.01). LASC patients also experienced less heartburn and more dysphagia than patient controls (heartburn 68%, dysphagia 11%; both P < 0.001). The prevalence of heartburn and dysphagia in IOM patients featuring a majority of non-transmitted sequences (NT) was 54% (P = 0.04 vs LASC) and 36% (P < 0.01 vs controls), respectively. No differences in age and gender distribution, chest pain prevalence, acid exposure time (AET) and symptom/reflux association existed between IOM subsets, or between subsets and controls.
CONCLUSION: IOM patients with LASC exhibit a different symptom profile to those with LAP, but do not differ in gastro-oesophageal reflux prevalence. These findings raise the possibility of different pathophysiological mechanisms in IOM subsets, which warrants further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18595138      PMCID: PMC2719234          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.3719

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  25 in total

Review 1.  Clinical esophageal pH recording: a technical review for practice guideline development.

Authors:  P J Kahrilas; E M Quigley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Esophageal manometry in 95 healthy adult volunteers. Variability of pressures with age and frequency of "abnormal" contractions.

Authors:  J E Richter; W C Wu; D N Johns; J N Blackwell; J L Nelson; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the clinical use of esophageal manometry.

Authors:  P J Kahrilas; R E Clouse; W J Hogan
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data.

Authors:  B L Weusten; J M Roelofs; L M Akkermans; G P Van Berge-Henegouwen; A J Smout
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Ineffective esophageal motility: the most common motility abnormality in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms.

Authors:  Y M Fouad; P O Katz; J G Hatlebakk; D O Castell
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Long-term clinical and manometric follow-up of patients with nonspecific esophageal motor disorders.

Authors:  S R Achem; J Crittenden; B Kolts; L Burton
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM): the primary finding in patients with nonspecific esophageal motility disorder.

Authors:  L P Leite; B T Johnston; J Barrett; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Predictive value of symptom profiles in patients with suspected oesophageal dysmotility.

Authors:  Y T Bak; M Lorang; P R Evans; J E Kellow; M P Jones; R C Smith
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.423

9.  Esophageal manometry: a comparison of findings in younger and older patients.

Authors:  A C Ribeiro; P J Klingler; R A Hinder; K DeVault
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Clarification of the esophageal function defect in patients with manometric ineffective esophageal motility: studies using combined impedance-manometry.

Authors:  Radu Tutuian; Donald O Castell
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  8 in total

1.  Significance of the lower esophageal sphincter preservation in preventing alkaline reflux esophagitis in patients after total gastrectomy reconstructed by Roux-en-Y for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Ryouichi Tomita; Kenichi Sakurai; Shigeru Fujisaki
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr

2.  Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) with EsophyX for gastroesophageal reflux disease: long-term results and findings affecting outcome.

Authors:  Pier Alberto Testoni; Cristian Vailati; Sabrina Testoni; Maura Corsetti
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Long-term efficacy of transoral incisionless fundoplication with Esophyx (Tif 2.0) and factors affecting outcomes in GERD patients followed for up to 6 years: a prospective single-center study.

Authors:  Pier Alberto Testoni; Sabrina Testoni; Giorgia Mazzoleni; Cristian Vailati; Sandro Passaretti
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Can different subsets of ineffective esophageal motility influence the outcome of nissen fundoplication?

Authors:  Aleksandar P Simić; Ognjan M Skrobić; Richard R Gurski; Vladimir M Šljukić; Nenad R Ivanović; Predrag M Peško
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Habitual rapid food intake and ineffective esophageal motility.

Authors:  Kong-Ling Li; Ji-Hong Chen; Qian Zhang; Jan D Huizinga; Shawn Vadakepeedika; Yu-Rong Zhao; Wen-Zhen Yu; He-Sheng Luo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Surgical techniques to prevent reflux esophagitis in proximal gastrectomy reconstructed by esophagogastrostomy with preservation of the lower esophageal sphincter, pyloric and celiac branches of the vagal nerve, and reconstruction of the new His angle for early proximal gastric cancer.

Authors:  Ryouichi Tomita
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Manometric Subtypes of Ineffective Esophageal Motility.

Authors:  Mirjam Hiestand; Ala' Abdel Jalil; Donald O Castell
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 4.488

8.  Transoral incisionless fundoplication with EsophyX for gastroesophageal reflux disease: clinical efficacy is maintained up to 10 years.

Authors:  Pier Alberto Testoni; Sabrina Testoni; Giovanni Distefano; Giorgia Mazzoleni; Lorella Fanti; Sandro Passaretti
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-05-02
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.