Literature DB >> 25232548

Upper esophageal sphincter abnormalities are strongly predictive of treatment response in patients with achalasia.

Simon C Mathews1, Maria Ciarleglio1, Yamile Haito Chavez1, John O Clarke1, Ellen Stein1, Bani Chander Roland1.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the relationship between upper esophageal sphincter abnormalities achalasia treatment
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 41 consecutive patients referred for high resolution esophageal manometry with a final manometric diagnosis of achalasia. Patients were sub-divided by presence or absence of Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) abnormality, and clinical and manometric profiles were compared. Correlation between UES abnormality and sub-type (i.e., hypertensive, hypotensive or impaired relaxation) and a number of variables, including qualitative treatment response, achalasia sub-type, co-morbid medical illness, psychiatric illness, surgical history, dominant presenting symptom, treatment type, age and gender were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Among all 41 patients, 24 (58.54%) had a UES abnormality present. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, gender or any other clinical or demographic profiles. Among those with UES abnormalities, the majority were either hypertensive (41.67%) or had impaired relaxation (37.5%) as compared to hypotensive (20.83%), although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.42). There was no specific association between treatment response and treatment type received; however, there was a significant association between UES abnormalities and treatment response. In patients with achalasia and concomitant UES abnormalities, 87.5% had poor treatment response, while only 12.5% had favorable response. In contrast, in patients with achalasia and no UES abnormalities, the majority (78.57%) had good treatment response, as compared to 21.43% with poor treatment response (P = 0.0001). After controlling for achalasia sub-type, those with UES abnormality had 26 times greater odds of poor treatment response than those with no UES abnormality (P = 0.009). Similarly, after controlling for treatment type, those with UES abnormality had 13.9 times greater odds of poor treatment response compared to those with no UES abnormality (P = 0.017).
CONCLUSION: The presence of UES abnormalities in patients with achalasia significantly predicted poorer treatment response as compared to those with normal UES function.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Achalasia; Dysphagia; Esophageal disorders; Motility; Upper esophageal sphincter

Year:  2014        PMID: 25232548      PMCID: PMC4163767          DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v2.i9.448

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Clin Cases        ISSN: 2307-8960            Impact factor:   1.337


  27 in total

Review 1.  Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography.

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

2.  Outcomes of treatment for achalasia depend on manometric subtype.

Authors:  Wout O Rohof; Renato Salvador; Vito Annese; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Stanislas Chaussade; Mario Costantini; J Ignasi Elizalde; Marianne Gaudric; André J Smout; Jan Tack; Olivier R Busch; Giovanni Zaninotto; Guy E Boeckxstaens
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Dilatation therapy for dysphagia in patients with upper esophageal sphincter dysfunction--manometric and symptomatic response.

Authors:  J G Hatlebakk; J A Castell; J Spiegel; V Paoletti; P O Katz; D O Castell
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.429

4.  A 78-year-old man with difficulty swallowing.

Authors:  Ikuo Hirano; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 5.  Pharyngeal and upper esophageal sphincter manometry in the evaluation of dysphagia.

Authors:  A Hila; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.062

6.  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

7.  Repetitive contractions of the upper esophageal body and sphincter in achalasia.

Authors:  Z G Zhang; N E Diamant
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.438

8.  Abnormal upper esophageal sphincter function in achalasia.

Authors:  R S Dudnick; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Esophageal function in systemic sclerosis: a prospective evaluation of motility and acid reflux in 36 patients.

Authors:  J C Yarze; J Varga; D Stampfl; D O Castell; S A Jimenez
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Upper esophageal responses to intraluminal distention in man.

Authors:  D R Enzmann; G S Harell; F F Zboralske
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  8 in total

1.  Upper Esophageal Sphincter Motility and Thoracic Pressure are Determinants of Pressurized Waves in Achalasia Subtypes According to the Chicago Classification.

Authors:  Alexandre Anefalos; Fernando A M Herbella; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Oropharyngeal dysphagia: manifestations and diagnosis.

Authors:  Nathalie Rommel; Shaheen Hamdy
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 46.802

3.  Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) metrics on high-resolution manometry (HRM) differentiate achalasia subtypes.

Authors:  P Blais; A Patel; G S Sayuk; C P Gyawali
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 3.598

Review 4.  The upper esophageal sphincter in the high-resolution manometry era.

Authors:  Pedro Norton; Fernando A M Herbella; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  High-Resolution Manometry Evaluation of the Pharynx and Upper Esophageal Sphincter Motility in Patients with Achalasia.

Authors:  Mariano A Menezes; Fernando A M Herbella; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  High Resolution Manofluorographic Study in Patients With Multiple System Atrophy: Possible Early Detection of Upper Esophageal Sphincter and Proximal Esophageal Abnormality.

Authors:  Rumi Ueha; Takao Goto; Taku Sato; Nogah Nativ-Zeltzer; Shih Chieh Shen; Takaharu Nito; Peter C Belafsky; Tatsuya Yamasoba
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-10-05

7.  Can the upper esophageal sphincter contractile integral help classify achalasia?

Authors:  Tania Triantafyllou; Charalampos Theodoropoulos; Apostolos Mantides; Demosthenis Chrysikos; Spyridon Smparounis; Konstantinos Filis; Georgios Zografos; Dimitrios Theodorou
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-05-03

8.  Upper esophageal sphincter abnormalities on high-resolution esophageal manometry and treatment response of type II achalasia.

Authors:  Can-Ze Huang; Zai-Wei Huang; Hua-Min Liang; Zhen-Jiang Wang; Ting-Ting Guo; Yu-Ping Chen
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 1.337

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.