BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophageal retention is typically evaluated by timed-barium esophagram in patients treated for achalasia. Esophageal bolus clearance can also be evaluated using high-resolution impedance manometry. We evaluated the associations of conventional and novel high-resolution impedance manometry metrics, esophagram, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in achalasia. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 70 patients with achalasia (age, 20-81 y; 30 women) treated by pneumatic dilation or myotomy who underwent follow-up evaluations from April 2013 through December 2015 (median, 12 mo after treatment; range, 3-183 mo). Patients were assessed using timed-barium esophagrams, high-resolution impedance manometry, and PROs, determined from Eckardt scores (the primary outcome) and the brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire. Barium column height was measured from esophagrams taken 5 minutes after ingestion of barium (200 mL). Impedance-manometry was analyzed for bolus transit (dichotomized) and with a customized MATLAB program (The MathWorks, Inc, Natick, MA) to calculate the esophageal impedance integral (EII) ratio. RESULTS: Optimal cut points to identify a good PRO (defined as Eckardt score of ≤3) were esophagram barium column height of 3 cm (identified patients with a good PRO with 63% sensitivity and 75% specificity) and an EII ratio of 0.41 (identified patients with a good PRO with 83% sensitivity and 75% specificity). Complete bolus transit identified patients with a good PRO with 28% sensitivity and 75% specificity. Of the 25 patients who met these cut points for both esophagram barium column height and EII ratio, 23 (92%) had a good PRO. Of the 17 patients who met neither cut point, 14 (82%) had a poor PRO (Eckardt score above 3). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of 70 patients with achalasia, we found EII ratio identified patients with good PROs with higher levels of sensitivity (same specificity) than timed-barium esophagram or impedance-manometry bolus transit assessments. The EII ratio should be added to achalasia outcome evaluations that involve high-resolution impedance manometry as an independent measure and to complement timed-barium esophagram.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Esophageal retention is typically evaluated by timed-barium esophagram in patients treated for achalasia. Esophageal bolus clearance can also be evaluated using high-resolution impedance manometry. We evaluated the associations of conventional and novel high-resolution impedance manometry metrics, esophagram, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in achalasia. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 70 patients with achalasia (age, 20-81 y; 30 women) treated by pneumatic dilation or myotomy who underwent follow-up evaluations from April 2013 through December 2015 (median, 12 mo after treatment; range, 3-183 mo). Patients were assessed using timed-barium esophagrams, high-resolution impedance manometry, and PROs, determined from Eckardt scores (the primary outcome) and the brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire. Barium column height was measured from esophagrams taken 5 minutes after ingestion of barium (200 mL). Impedance-manometry was analyzed for bolus transit (dichotomized) and with a customized MATLAB program (The MathWorks, Inc, Natick, MA) to calculate the esophageal impedance integral (EII) ratio. RESULTS: Optimal cut points to identify a good PRO (defined as Eckardt score of ≤3) were esophagram barium column height of 3 cm (identified patients with a good PRO with 63% sensitivity and 75% specificity) and an EII ratio of 0.41 (identified patients with a good PRO with 83% sensitivity and 75% specificity). Complete bolus transit identified patients with a good PRO with 28% sensitivity and 75% specificity. Of the 25 patients who met these cut points for both esophagram barium column height and EII ratio, 23 (92%) had a good PRO. Of the 17 patients who met neither cut point, 14 (82%) had a poor PRO (Eckardt score above 3). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of 70 patients with achalasia, we found EII ratio identified patients with good PROs with higher levels of sensitivity (same specificity) than timed-barium esophagram or impedance-manometry bolus transit assessments. The EII ratio should be added to achalasia outcome evaluations that involve high-resolution impedance manometry as an independent measure and to complement timed-barium esophagram.
Authors: P J Kahrilas; A J Bredenoord; M Fox; C P Gyawali; S Roman; A J P M Smout; J E Pandolfino Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: T H Taft; M Riehl; J B Sodikoff; P J Kahrilas; L Keefer; B Doerfler; J E Pandolfino Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Dustin A Carlson; Zhiyue Lin; Peter J Kahrilas; Joel Sternbach; Eric S Hungness; Nathaniel J Soper; Michelle Balla; Zoe Listernick; Michael Tye; Katherine Ritter; Jenna Craft; Jody D Ciolino; John E Pandolfino Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 10.864
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