Literature DB >> 21854736

High-resolution manometry studies are frequently imperfect but usually still interpretable.

Sabine Roman1, Peter J Kahrilas, Lubomyr Boris, Kiran Bidari, Daniel Luger, John E Pandolfino.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical esophageal manometry can be technically challenging. We investigated the prevalence and causes of technically imperfect, high-resolution esophageal pressure topography (EPT) studies at a tertiary referral hospital.
METHODS: We reviewed 2000 consecutive clinical EPT studies that had been performed with consistent technique and protocol. A study was considered technically imperfect if there was a problem with pressure signal acquisition, if the catheter did not pass through the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), or if there were fewer than 7 evaluable swallows (without double-swallowing, and so forth). Data from the technically imperfect studies were interpreted blindly to determine a diagnosis; this diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis based on chart review.
RESULTS: We identified 414 technically imperfect studies (21% of the series). These were attributed to fewer than 7 evaluable swallows (58%), inability to traverse the EGJ (29%), sensor or thermal compensation malfunction (7%), and miscellaneous artifacts (6%). The most frequent causes of failure to traverse the EGJ were a large hiatal hernia (50%) and achalasia (24%). The condition most frequently associated with an incomplete swallow protocol was achalasia (33%). Despite the limitations, the diagnosis of achalasia was achieved correctly by blinded interpretation in 77% of cases and nonblinded interpretation in 94% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Technically imperfect EPT studies are common in a tertiary care center; large hiatal hernia and achalasia were the most frequent causes. However, despite the technical limitations, the data still could be interpreted, especially in the context of associated endoscopic and radiographic data.
Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21854736      PMCID: PMC3607365          DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.08.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  10 in total

1.  Application of topographical methods to clinical esophageal manometry.

Authors:  R E Clouse; A Staiano; A Alrakawi; L Haroian
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 2.  Components of the standard oesophageal manometry.

Authors:  J A Murray; R E Clouse; J L Conklin
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.598

Review 3.  Esophageal motor disorders in terms of high-resolution esophageal pressure topography: what has changed?

Authors:  Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: Clinical use of esophageal manometry.

Authors:  John E Pandolfino; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 5.  AGA technical review on the clinical use of esophageal manometry.

Authors:  John E Pandolfino; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  High-resolution manometry predicts the success of oesophageal bolus transport and identifies clinically important abnormalities not detected by conventional manometry.

Authors:  M Fox; G Hebbard; P Janiak; J G Brasseur; S Ghosh; M Thumshirn; M Fried; W Schwizer
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.598

7.  Value of spatiotemporal representation of manometric data.

Authors:  Claudia Grübel; Richard Hiscock; Geoff Hebbard
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-04-14       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 8.  Classification of oesophageal motility abnormalities.

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

9.  Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry.

Authors:  John E Pandolfino; Monika A Kwiatek; Thomas Nealis; William Bulsiewicz; Jennifer Post; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 10.  High-resolution manometry in clinical practice: utilizing pressure topography to classify oesophageal motility abnormalities.

Authors:  J E Pandolfino; M R Fox; A J Bredenoord; P J Kahrilas
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 3.598

  10 in total
  13 in total

Review 1.  Utility of Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry in Clinical Practice: First, Do HRM.

Authors:  Ishita Dhawan; Brendon O'Connell; Amit Patel; Ron Schey; Henry P Parkman; Frank Friedenberg
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Achalasia: It Is Not All Black and White.

Authors:  Santosh Sanagapalli; Rami Sweis
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2017-06

Review 3.  High-resolution esophageal manometry: interpretation in clinical practice.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati
Journal:  Curr Opin Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.287

4.  Upper esophageal sphincter resting pressure varies during esophageal manometry.

Authors:  Daniel Tavares Rezende; Fernando A M Herbella; Luciana C Silva; Sebastião Panocchia-Neto; Marco G Patti
Journal:  Arq Bras Cir Dig       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep

5.  Optimizing the high-resolution manometry (HRM) study protocol.

Authors:  A Patel; A Ding; F Mirza; C P Gyawali
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 3.598

6.  Function of high-resolution manometry in the analysis of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia.

Authors:  Hui Ju; Yongfen Ma; Kun Liang; Cuiping Zhang; Zibin Tian
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Andrew J Gawron; Rajesh N Keswani; Karl Bilimoria; Donald O Castell; Kerry B Dunbar; Chandra P Gyawali; Blair A Jobe; Philip O Katz; David A Katzka; Brian E Lacy; Benson T Massey; Joel E Richter; Felice Schnoll-Sussman; Stuart J Spechler; Roger Tatum; Marcelo F Vela; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  How the Body Position Can Influence High-resolution Manometry Results in the Study of Esophageal Dysphagia and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Constanza Ciriza-de-Los-Ríos; Fernando Canga-Rodríguez-Valcárcel; David Lora-Pablos; Javier De-La-Cruz-Bértolo; Isabel Castel-de-Lucas; Gregorio Castellano-Tortajada
Journal:  J Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 4.924

9.  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

10.  The effects of different postures and provocative swallow materials on the normative Chicago 3.0 metrics in a healthy Asian population.

Authors:  Mohd Ridzuan Mohd Said; Zhiqin Wong; Rafiz Abdul Rani; Chai Soon Ngiu; Raja Affendi Raja Ali; Yeong Yeh Lee
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 4.029

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.