Literature DB >> 21602703

Endoscopically assisted water perfusion esophageal manometry with minimal sedation: technique, indications, and implication on the clinical management.

Rita Brun1, Kyle Staller, Sofia Viner, Braden Kuo.   

Abstract

GOALS: To demonstrate feasibility and clinical utility of endoscopically assisted manometry (EAM).
BACKGROUND: Esophageal manometry performed without sedation is the standard for assessment of esophageal motility. However, some patients cannot tolerate the procedure with intranasal intubation. We have accumulated experience performing EAM with minimal sedation on patients who cannot tolerate standard esophageal manometry. STUDY: We report our single center experience of EAM in adult patients. Patient records were analyzed retrospectively. PROCEDURE PROTOCOL: Upper endoscopy is performed with minimal sedation to place a guide wire, over which a water perfusion manometry catheter is introduced and standard manometry protocol performed.
RESULTS: From 2007 to 2009, 51 patients underwent EAM, 41 (80.4%) for failed transnasal esophageal manometry and 10 (19.6%) for Zencker diverticulum, achalasia, or neurologic disease. Five patients could not tolerate the procedure despite sedation. No early or late complications were recorded and 100% of the completed procedures were diagnostic: 15 (32.6%) patients had a normal study, 13 (28.3%) were diagnosed with achalasia, 12 (26.1%) patients had low lower esophageal sphincter pressure, 10 (21.7%) patients showed ineffective esophageal motility, 3 (6.5%) patients had hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter, and 1 (2.2%) patient had nutcracker esophagus. Completed procedures resulted in treatment for achalasia (33.3%), medication changes (33.3%), completion of preoperative assessment for antireflux surgery (27.7%), or no impact clinical management (11.1%). EAM had a direct clinical impact on 89% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS: EAM is a safe, reliable, and feasible technique providing objective diagnostic information that directly impacted clinical management in many problematic patients where the standard procedure failed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21602703      PMCID: PMC4432032          DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182098bcd

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0192-0790            Impact factor:   3.062


  16 in total

1.  Effect of mucosal anaesthesia on oropharyngeal swallowing.

Authors:  C Ertekin; N Kiylioglu; S Tarlaci; A Keskin; I Aydogdu
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.598

2.  Manometric evaluation of the papillar of Vater.

Authors:  O T Nebel
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1975-02       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  The effects of tramadol and fentanyl on gastrointestinal motility in septic rats.

Authors:  Ismet Topcu; N Zeynep Ekici; Rusen Isik; Melek Sakarya
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  The effect of intravenous diazepam on esophageal motility in normal subjects.

Authors:  R M Reveille; J S Goff; K Hollstrom-Tarwater
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 5.  Classification of oesophageal motility abnormalities.

Authors:  S J Spechler; D O Castell
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  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

7.  The effect of topical pharyngeal anesthesia on esophageal motility.

Authors:  S M Nasrallah; E Hendrix
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Endoscopic esophageal manometry.

Authors:  P Y Kwo; A J Cameron; S F Phillips
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Effect of intravenous midazolam on esophageal motility testing in normal human volunteers.

Authors:  J K Marsh; S M Hoffman; C F Dmuchowski
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Functional oropharyngeal sensory disruption interferes with the cortical control of swallowing.

Authors:  Inga K Teismann; Olaf Steinstraeter; Kati Stoeckigt; Sonja Suntrup; Andreas Wollbrink; Christo Pantev; Rainer Dziewas
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-02       Impact factor: 3.288

View more
  3 in total

1.  Endoscopy- and Monitored Anesthesia Care-Assisted High-Resolution Impedance Manometry Improves Clinical Management.

Authors:  Kaci E Christian; John D Morris; Guofeng Xie
Journal:  Case Rep Gastrointest Med       Date:  2018-08-07

2.  Performing High-resolution Impedance Manometry After Endoscopy With Conscious Sedation Has Negligible Effects on Esophageal Motility Results.

Authors:  Hui Su; Dustin A Carlson; Erica Donnan; Wenjun Kou; Jacqueline Prescott; Alex Decorrevont; Francesca Shilati; Melina Masihi; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  J Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 4.924

3.  Revisiting the Reliability of the Endoscopy and Sedation-Assisted High-Resolution Esophageal Motility Assessment.

Authors:  Hassan Tariq; Jasbir Makker; Chukwononso Chime; Muhammad Umar Kamal; Ahmed Rafeeq; Harish Patel
Journal:  Gastroenterology Res       Date:  2019-06-07
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.