BACKGROUND: Although, the current protocol for high resolution manometry (HRM) using the Chicago Classification is based on the supine posture, some practitioners prefer a sitting posture. Our aims were to establish normative esophageal pressure topography data for the sitting position and to determine the effect of applying those norms to Chicago Classification diagnoses. METHODS: Esophageal pressure topography studies including test swallows in both a supine and sitting position of 75 healthy volunteers and 120 patients were reviewed. Integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), distal contractile integral (DCI), contractile front velocity (CFV), and distal latency were measured and compared between postures. Normative ranges were established from the healthy volunteers and the effect of applying sitting normative values to the patients was analyzed. KEY RESULTS: Normative values of IRP, DCI, and CFV all decreased significantly in the sitting posture. Applying normative sitting metrics to patient studies [27% reduction in IRP (15 to 11 mmHg), 69% reduction in DCI (8000-2500 mmHg-s-cm)] reclassified 13/120 (11%) patients as having abnormal esophagogastric junction relaxation and 26/120 (22%) as hypercontractile. Three patients with an abnormal supine IRP normalized when sitting with elimination of a vascular artifact. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Clinical HRM studies should include both a supine and sitting position to minimize misdiagnoses attributable to anatomical factors. However, until outcome studies demonstrating the significance of isolated abnormalities of IRP or DCI in the sitting position are available, the Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders should continue to be based on supine swallows using normative data from the supine posture.
BACKGROUND: Although, the current protocol for high resolution manometry (HRM) using the Chicago Classification is based on the supine posture, some practitioners prefer a sitting posture. Our aims were to establish normative esophageal pressure topography data for the sitting position and to determine the effect of applying those norms to Chicago Classification diagnoses. METHODS: Esophageal pressure topography studies including test swallows in both a supine and sitting position of 75 healthy volunteers and 120 patients were reviewed. Integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), distal contractile integral (DCI), contractile front velocity (CFV), and distal latency were measured and compared between postures. Normative ranges were established from the healthy volunteers and the effect of applying sitting normative values to the patients was analyzed. KEY RESULTS: Normative values of IRP, DCI, and CFV all decreased significantly in the sitting posture. Applying normative sitting metrics to patient studies [27% reduction in IRP (15 to 11 mmHg), 69% reduction in DCI (8000-2500 mmHg-s-cm)] reclassified 13/120 (11%) patients as having abnormal esophagogastric junction relaxation and 26/120 (22%) as hypercontractile. Three patients with an abnormal supine IRP normalized when sitting with elimination of a vascular artifact. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Clinical HRM studies should include both a supine and sitting position to minimize misdiagnoses attributable to anatomical factors. However, until outcome studies demonstrating the significance of isolated abnormalities of IRP or DCI in the sitting position are available, the Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders should continue to be based on supine swallows using normative data from the supine posture.
Authors: K Iwakiri; T Sugiura; M Kotoyori; H Yamada; Y Hayashi; Y Nakagawa; A Kawakami; M Kobayashi Journal: J Gastroenterol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 7.527
Authors: Sudip K Ghosh; John E Pandolfino; Qing Zhang; Andrew Jarosz; Nimeesh Shah; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2006-01-12 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Sudip K Ghosh; Qing Zhang; Andrew Jarosz; Nimeesh Shah; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: A J Bredenoord; M Fox; P J Kahrilas; J E Pandolfino; W Schwizer; A J P M Smout Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Sudip K Ghosh; Peter J Kahrilas; Tamer Zaki; John E Pandolfino; Raymond J Joehl; James G Brasseur Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2005-02-03 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Sudip K Ghosh; John Rice; John O Clarke; Monika A Kwiatek; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Peter J Kahrilas; Albert J Bredenoord; Mark Fox; C Prakash Gyawali; Sabine Roman; André J P M Smout; John E Pandolfino Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: H Monrroy; D Cisternas; C Bilder; A Ditaranto; J Remes-Troche; A Meixueiro; M A Zavala; J Serra; I Marín; A Ruiz de León; J Pérez de la Serna; A Hani; A Leguizamo; L Abrahao; R Coello; M A Valdovinos Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 10.864
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
Authors: Joseph R Triggs; Dustin A Carlson; Claire Beveridge; Anand Jain; Michael Y Tye; Peter J Kahrilas; John E Pandolfino Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 11.382
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