Literature DB >> 30711626

Development and Validation of a Mucosal Impedance Contour Analysis System to Distinguish Esophageal Disorders.

Dhyanesh A Patel1, Tina Higginbotham1, James C Slaughter2, Muhammad Aslam1, Elif Yuksel3, David Katzka4, C Prakash Gyawali5, Melina Mashi6, John Pandolfino6, Michael F Vaezi7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnostic testing for chronic esophageal disorders relies on histopathology analysis of biopsies or uncomfortable transnasal catheters or wireless pH monitoring, which capture abnormal intraluminal refluxate. We therefore developed a balloon mucosal impedance (MI) catheter system that instantly detects changes in esophageal mucosal integrity during endoscopy over a long segment of the esophagus. We performed a prospective study to evaluate the ability of a balloon-incorporated MI catheter to detect and evaluate esophageal disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).
METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 69 patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy with or without wireless pH monitoring. Patients were classified as having GERD (erosive esophagitis or abnormal pH; n = 24), EoE (confirmed with pathology analysis of tissues from both distal and proximal esophagus; n = 21), or non-GERD (normal results from esophagogastroduodenoscopy and pH tests; n = 24). Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used to compare the accuracy of balloon MI in diagnosis. Probabilities of assignment to each group (GERD, non-GERD, or EoE) were estimated using multinomial logistic regression. Association between MI patterns and diagnoses were validated using data from patients seen at 3 separate institutions.
RESULTS: MI pattern along the esophageal axis differed significantly (P < .01) among patients with GERD, EoE, and non-GERD. Patients with non-GERD had higher MI values along all measured segments. The MI pattern for GERD was easily distinguished from that of EoE: in patients with GERD, MI values were low in the distal esophagus and normalized along the proximal esophagus, whereas in patients with EoE, measurements were low in all segments of the esophagus. Intercept and rate of rise of MI value (slope) as distance increased from the squamocolumnar junction identified patients with GERD with an AUC = 0.67, patients with EoE with an AUC = 0.84, and patients with non-GERD with an AUC = 0.83 in the development cohort. One patient had an adverse event (reported mild chest pain after the procedure) and was discharged from the hospital without further events.
CONCLUSIONS: We developed a balloon MI catheter system that instantly detects changes in esophageal mucosal integrity during endoscopy and found it to be safe and able to identify patients with GERD, EoE, or non-GERD. We validated our findings in a separate cohort for patients. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03103789.
Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic; Impedance Contour; Predictive Model; Prognostic

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30711626      PMCID: PMC6990978          DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.253

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  49 in total

1.  In vivo evaluation of acid-induced changes in oesophageal mucosa integrity and sensitivity in non-erosive reflux disease.

Authors:  Philip Woodland; Mohannad Al-Zinaty; Etsuro Yazaki; Daniel Sifrim
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Cost-effectiveness model of endoscopic biopsy for eosinophilic esophagitis in patients with refractory GERD.

Authors:  Stephen M Miller; Jay L Goldstein; Lauren B Gerson
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Effect of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring on reflux-provoking activities.

Authors:  R Fass; R Hell; R E Sampliner; G Pulliam; E Graver; V Hartz; C Johnson; P Jaffe
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Patchy eosinophil distributions in an esophagectomy specimen from a patient with eosinophilic esophagitis: Implications for endoscopic biopsy.

Authors:  Hedieh Saffari; Kathryn A Peterson; John C Fang; Carolin Teman; Gerald J Gleich; Leonard F Pease
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 10.793

5.  The role of impedance monitoring in patients with extraesophageal symptoms.

Authors:  Robert T Kavitt; Elif Saritas Yuksel; James C Slaughter; C Gaelyn Garrett; David Hagaman; Tina Higginbotham; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 6.  Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hashem B El-Serag; Stephen Sweet; Christopher C Winchester; John Dent
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  A randomized trial of ways to describe test accuracy: the effect on physicians' post-test probability estimates.

Authors:  Milo A Puhan; Johann Steurer; Lucas M Bachmann; Gerben ter Riet
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-08-02       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  ACG clinical guideline: Evidenced based approach to the diagnosis and management of esophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Authors:  Evan S Dellon; Nirmala Gonsalves; Ikuo Hirano; Glenn T Furuta; Chris A Liacouras; David A Katzka
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Esophageal Mucosal Impedance Patterns Discriminate Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Patients With GERD.

Authors:  Yash Choksi; Pooja Lal; James C Slaughter; Rohit Sharda; Jacob Parnell; Tina Higginbotham; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis in an adult population undergoing upper endoscopy: a prospective study.

Authors:  Ganesh R Veerappan; Joseph L Perry; Timothy J Duncan; Thomas P Baker; Corinne Maydonovitch; Jason M Lake; Roy K H Wong; Eric M Osgard
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  13 in total

1.  Treatment of Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Rishi D Naik; Matthew H Meyers; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2020-04

Review 2.  Phenotypes of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Where Rome, Lyon, and Montreal Meet.

Authors:  David A Katzka; John E Pandolfino; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Authors:  Philip O Katz; Kerry B Dunbar; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Katarina B Greer; Rena Yadlapati; Stuart Jon Spechler
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Optimal Wireless Reflux Monitoring Metrics to Predict Discontinuation of Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; C Prakash Gyawali; Melina Masihi; Dustin A Carlson; Peter J Kahrilas; Billy Darren Nix; Anand Jain; Joseph R Triggs; Michael F Vaezi; Leila Kia; Alexander Kaizer; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 12.045

5.  Baseline impedance via manometry and ambulatory reflux testing are not equivalent when utilized in the evaluation of potential extra-esophageal gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Thomas A Zikos; George Triadafilopoulos; Afrin Kamal; Alexander Podboy; Irene S Sonu; Kirsten A Regalia; Monica C Nandwani; Linda A Nguyen; Nielsen Q Fernandez-Becker; John O Clarke
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Impedance and Histologic Characteristics of the Sub-Laryngeal Esophagus Distinguish Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Other Esophageal Disorders.

Authors:  Yash A Choksi; Jasmine Chaparro; Michael Blanco; Rohit Sharda; Shabnam Sarker; Sarah Ferguson; Tina Higginbotham; Girish Hiremath; Frank Revetta; M Kay Washington; Christopher S Williams; Michael F Vaezi
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 7.  EoE disease monitoring: Where we are and where we are going.

Authors:  Bridget Godwin; Benjamin Wilkins; Amanda B Muir
Journal:  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 6.347

8.  Integrative transcriptome data mining for identification of core lncRNAs in breast cancer.

Authors:  Xiaoming Zhang; Jing Zhuang; Lijuan Liu; Zhengguo He; Cun Liu; Xiaoran Ma; Jie Li; Xia Ding; Changgang Sun
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 9.  Pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis: a review for the clinician.

Authors:  Antonella Cianferoni; Elio Novembre; Simona Barni; Stefania Arasi; Carla Mastrorilli; Luca Pecoraro; Mattia Giovannini; Francesca Mori; Lucia Liotti; Francesca Saretta; Riccardo Castagnoli; Lucia Caminiti
Journal:  Ital J Pediatr       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 2.638

10.  Mucosal Integrity Testing Can Detect Differences in the Rectums of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Compared to Controls: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Miles Basil; David Schwartz; Robin Dalal; Sara Horst; Elizabeth Scoville; Dawn Adams; Dawn Beaulieu; James C Slaughter; Tina Higginbotham; Michael Vaezi; Yash Choksi
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.