P Blais1, A Patel2, G S Sayuk1,3, C P Gyawali1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine and the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. John Cochran Veterans Affairs Medical Center, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The upper esophageal sphincter (UES) reflexively responds to bolus presence within the esophageal lumen, therefore UES metrics can vary in achalasia. METHODS: Within consecutive patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM), 302 patients (58.2±1.0 year, 57% F) with esophageal outflow obstruction were identified, and compared to 16 asymptomatic controls (27.7±0.7 year, 56% F). Esophageal outflow obstruction was segregated into achalasia subtypes 1, 2, and 3, and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO with intact peristalsis) using Chicago Classification v3.0. UES and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) metrics were compared between esophageal outflow obstruction and normal controls using univariate and multivariate analysis. Linear regression excluded multicollinearity of pressure metrics that demonstrated significant differences across individual subtype comparisons. KEY RESULTS: LES integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) had utility in differentiating achalasia from controls (P<.0001), but no utility in segregating between subtypes (P=.27). In comparison to controls, patients collectively demonstrated univariate differences in UES mean basal pressure, relaxation time to nadir, recovery time, and residual pressure (UES-RP) (P≤.049). UES-RP was highest in type 2 achalasia (P<.0001 compared to other subtypes and controls). In multivariate analysis, only UES-RP retained significance in comparison between each of the subgroups (P≤.02 for each comparison). Intrabolus pressure was highest in type 3 achalasia; this demonstrated significant differences across some but not all subtype comparisons. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Nadir UES-RP can differentiate achalasia subtypes within the esophageal outflow obstruction spectrum, with highest values in type 2 achalasia. This metric likely represents a surrogate marker for esophageal pressurization.
BACKGROUND: The upper esophageal sphincter (UES) reflexively responds to bolus presence within the esophageal lumen, therefore UES metrics can vary in achalasia. METHODS: Within consecutive patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM), 302 patients (58.2±1.0 year, 57% F) with esophageal outflow obstruction were identified, and compared to 16 asymptomatic controls (27.7±0.7 year, 56% F). Esophageal outflow obstruction was segregated into achalasia subtypes 1, 2, and 3, and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO with intact peristalsis) using Chicago Classification v3.0. UES and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) metrics were compared between esophageal outflow obstruction and normal controls using univariate and multivariate analysis. Linear regression excluded multicollinearity of pressure metrics that demonstrated significant differences across individual subtype comparisons. KEY RESULTS: LES integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) had utility in differentiating achalasia from controls (P<.0001), but no utility in segregating between subtypes (P=.27). In comparison to controls, patients collectively demonstrated univariate differences in UES mean basal pressure, relaxation time to nadir, recovery time, and residual pressure (UES-RP) (P≤.049). UES-RP was highest in type 2 achalasia (P<.0001 compared to other subtypes and controls). In multivariate analysis, only UES-RP retained significance in comparison between each of the subgroups (P≤.02 for each comparison). Intrabolus pressure was highest in type 3 achalasia; this demonstrated significant differences across some but not all subtype comparisons. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Nadir UES-RP can differentiate achalasia subtypes within the esophageal outflow obstruction spectrum, with highest values in type 2 achalasia. This metric likely represents a surrogate marker for esophageal pressurization.
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: Yamile H Chavez; Maria M Ciarleglio; John O Clarke; Monica Nandwani; Ellen Stein; Bani C Roland Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.062
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
Authors: Simon C Mathews; Maria Ciarleglio; Yamile Haito Chavez; John O Clarke; Ellen Stein; Bani Chander Roland Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: J B Sodikoff; A A Lo; B B Shetuni; P J Kahrilas; G-Y Yang; J E Pandolfino Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Lucie F Calderon; Meredith Kline; Marc Hersh; Kevin P Shah; Suprateek Kundu; Andrew Tkaczuk; Nancy McColloch; AnS Jain Journal: J Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 4.725