BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal motility abnormalities, as measured by conventional manometry (CM), are non-specific in the majority of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Moreover, the study of CM is limited by poor interobserver agreement. The aims of the present study were: (i) to assess the esophageal patterns in EoE by a topographic analysis of high-resolution manometry (HRM) data; and (ii) to establish a relationship between motility abnormalities and symptoms of EoE, such as dysphagia and bolus impaction. METHODS: All adult patients with EoE diagnosed according to histological criteria, and controls with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and dysphagia, were included. HRM was done in EoE patients and controls. For the analysis of data, the Chicago classification was followed. RESULTS: HRM was performed in 21 patients with EoE, as well as in 21 controls. Of the 21 patients with EoE, 10 (48%) showed pan-esophageal pressurization, six (28%) showed peristaltic dysfunction, and in five cases (24%), HRM was normal. There was no pan-esophageal pressurization in controls. Nine of 10 patients with pan-esophageal pressurization required endoscopic bolus removal (P < 0.05); none had obstructive endoscopy findings. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent esophageal motor abnormality measured by HRM was a pan-esophageal pressurization. Bolus impaction in patients with EoE was associated with pan-esophageal pressurization.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal motility abnormalities, as measured by conventional manometry (CM), are non-specific in the majority of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Moreover, the study of CM is limited by poor interobserver agreement. The aims of the present study were: (i) to assess the esophageal patterns in EoE by a topographic analysis of high-resolution manometry (HRM) data; and (ii) to establish a relationship between motility abnormalities and symptoms of EoE, such as dysphagia and bolus impaction. METHODS: All adult patients with EoE diagnosed according to histological criteria, and controls with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and dysphagia, were included. HRM was done in EoE patients and controls. For the analysis of data, the Chicago classification was followed. RESULTS: HRM was performed in 21 patients with EoE, as well as in 21 controls. Of the 21 patients with EoE, 10 (48%) showed pan-esophageal pressurization, six (28%) showed peristaltic dysfunction, and in five cases (24%), HRM was normal. There was no pan-esophageal pressurization in controls. Nine of 10 patients with pan-esophageal pressurization required endoscopic bolus removal (P < 0.05); none had obstructive endoscopy findings. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent esophageal motor abnormality measured by HRM was a pan-esophageal pressurization. Bolus impaction in patients with EoE was associated with pan-esophageal pressurization.