Effects of Codeine on Esophageal Peristalsis in Patients With Ineffective Esophageal Motility:Studies Using High-resolution Manometry

Background/Aims@#This study aims to evaluate the effects of acute codeine administration on primary and secondary esophageal peristalsis in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). @*Methods@#Eighteen IEM patients (8 women; mean age 37.8 years, range 23-64 years) were enrolled in the study. The patients underwent highresolution manometry exams, consisting of 10 single wet swallows, multiple rapid swallows, and ten 20 mL rapid air injections to trigger secondary peristalsis. All participants completed 2 separate sessions, including acute administration of codeine (60 mg) and placebo, in a randomized order. @*Results@#Codeine significantly increased the distal contractile integral (566 ± 81 mmHg · s · cm vs 247 ± 36 mmHg · s · cm, P = 0.001) andshortened distal latency (5.7 ± 0.2 seconds vs 6.5 ± 0.1 seconds, P < 0.001) for primary peristalsis compared with these parameters after placebo treatment. The mean total break length decreased significantly after codeine treatment compared with the length after placebo (P= 0.003). Codeine significantly increased esophagogastric junction-contractile integral (P= 0.028) but did not change the 4-second integrated relaxation pressure (P= 0.794). Codeine significantly decreased the frequency of weak (P= 0.039) and failed contractions (P= 0.009), resulting in increased frequency of normal primary peristalsis (P < 0.136). No significant differences in the ratio of impaired multiple rapid swallows inhibition and parameters of secondary peristalsis were detected. @*Conclusions@#In IEM patients, acute administration of codeine increases contraction vigor and reduces distal latency of primary esophageal peristalsis, but has no effect on secondary peristalsis. Future studies are required to further elucidate clinical relevance of these findings, especially in the setting of gastroesophageal reflux disease with IEM.

Impact of Esophageal Motility on Microbiome Alterations in Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients With Negative Endoscopy: Exploring the Role of Ineffective Esophageal Motility and Contraction Reserve

Background/Aims@#Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and can be associated with poor esophageal contraction reserve on multiple rapid swallows. Alterations in the esophageal microbiome have been reported in GERD, but the relationship to presence or absence of contraction reserve in IEM patients has not been evaluated. We aim to investigate whether contraction reserve influences esophageal microbiome alterations in patients with GERD and IEM. @*Methods@#We prospectively enrolled GERD patients with normal endoscopy and evaluated esophageal motility and contraction reserve with multiple rapid swallows during high-resolution manometry. The esophageal mucosa was biopsied for DNA extraction and 16S ribosomal RNA gene V3-V4 (Illumina)/full-length (Pacbio) amplicon sequencing analysis. @*Results@#Among the 56 recruited patients, 20 had normal motility (NM), 19 had IEM with contraction reserve (IEM-R), and 17 had IEM without contraction reserve (IEM-NR). Esophageal microbiome analysis showed a significant decrease in microbial richness in patients with IEM-NR when compared to NM. The beta diversity revealed different microbiome profiles between patients with NM or IEM-R and IEM-NR (P = 0.037). Several esophageal bacterial taxa were characteristic in patients with IEM-NR, including reduced Prevotella spp.and Veillonella dispar, and enriched Fusobacterium nucleatum. In a microbiome-based random forest model for predicting IEM-NR, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 was yielded. @*Conclusions@#In symptomatic GERD patients with normal endoscopic findings, the esophageal microbiome differs based on contraction reserve among IEM. Absent contraction reserve appears to alter the physiology and microbiota of the esophagus.

Esophageal Bolus Domain Pressure and Peristalsis Associated With Experimental Induction of Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction

Background/Aims@#Intrabolus pressures are important for esophageal bolus transport and may detect obstructed bolus flow. This study measured the effect esophageal outflow obstruction experimentally induce by a leg-lift protocol. @*Methods@#Twenty-five gastroesophageal reflux disease patients referred for esophageal manometry and a normal motility diagnosis were included. Supine liquid swallows were tested. Leg-lift protocol generated esophageal outflow obstruction by increasing abdominal pressure. Esophageal pressure topography and intrabolus pressure metrics were calculated. These included, (1) mid-domain bolus distension pressure during esophageal emptying (DPE, mmHg) and (2) ramp pressure (mmHg/sec), generated by compression of the bolus between the peristaltic contraction and esophagogastric junction (EGJ). @*Results@#EGJ relaxation pressure was increased by leg-lift from 13 (11-17) to 19 (14-30) mmHg (P< 0.005) and distal contractile integral also increased from 1077 (883-1349) to 1620 (1268-2072) mmHg · cm · sec (P < 0.001) as a physiological response to obstruction. All bolus pressures were increased by leg lift; DPE increased from 17 (15-20) to 27 (19-32) mmHg (P< 0.001), and ramp pressure increased from 3 (1-4) to 5 (2-9) mmHg/sec (P < 0.05). @*Conclusion@#Measuring pressures within the intrabolus domain can quantify changes related to obstruction to outflow and may serve as adjunct measures for confirming a diagnosis EGJ outflow obstruction.

Relevance of Ultrastructural Alterations of Intercellular Junction Morphology in Inflamed Human Esophagus

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Detailed characterization of the ultrastructural morphology of intercellular space in gastroesophageal reflux disease has not been fully studied. We aimed to investigate whether subtle alteration in intercellular space structure and tight junction proteins might differ among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: Esophageal biopsies at 5 cm above the gastroesophageal junction were obtained from 6 asymptomatic controls, 10 patients with reflux symptoms but without erosions, and 18 patients with erosions. The biopsies were morphologically evaluated by transmission electron microscopy, and by using immunohistochemistry for tight junction proteins (claudin-1 and claudin-2 proteins). RESULTS: The expressions of tight junction proteins did not differ between asymptomatic controls and gastroesophageal reflux disease patients. In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, altered desmosomal junction morphology was only found in upper stratified squamous epithelium. Dilated intercellular space occurred only in upper stratified squamous epithelium and in patients with erosive esophagitis. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that dilated intercellular space may not be uniformly present inside the esophageal mucosa and predominantly it is located in upper squamous epithelium. Presence of desmosomal junction alterations is associated with increased severity of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Besides dilated intercellular space, subtle changes in ultrastructural morphology of intercellular space allow better identification of inflamed esophageal mucosa relevant to acid reflux.

Atypical Symptoms in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Atypical symptoms are common in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and erosive reflux disease (ERD) exhibit different clinical characteristics and responses to acid suppression treatment. We aimed to compare atypical characteristics in patients with NERD and ERD. We also investigated the presence of histological esophagitis in patients with NERD and ERD. METHODS: Eligible patients completed a questionnaire regarding reflux symptoms and concomitant atypical symptoms. Endoscopic biopsies with histological examination were performed. RESULTS: Of the 210 patients with GERD, 90 patients with ERD and 120 patients with NERD were studied. ERD patients were characterized by higher prevalence of hiatal hernia (P = 0.001) and smoking (P = 0.047). The prevalence of GERD was greater in the age group between 41 and 60 years regardless of endoscopic finding. There was no difference in the prevalence of atypical symptoms or histological esophagitis between NERD and ERD. In all subjects, heartburn was associated with dysphagia (r = 0.16, P = 0.01), dyspepsia (r = 0.22, P = 0.008) and hiccup (r = 0.19, P = 0.003), whereas acid regurgitation was associated with dyspepsia (r = 0.21, P = 0.014), belching (r = 0.15, P = 0.018) and hiccup (r = 0.19, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Atypical symptoms did not correlate with the presence of histological esophagitis. Atypical symptoms were equally prevalent in patients with NERD and ERD. The existence of atypical symptoms appears to be associated with the presence of typical reflux symptoms irrespective of endoscopic and histological reflux esophagitis.

Impact of Sleep Dysfunction on Anorectal Motility in Healthy Humans

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sleep dysfunction is associated with altered gastrointestinal function and subsequently exacerbations of gastrointestinal problems. We aimed to investigate whether sleep dysfunction would influence anorectal motility as determined by anorectal manometry. The effect of anxiety on anorectal motility was also determined. METHODS: A total of 24 healthy volunteers underwent anorectal manometry. The anorectal parameters included resting and squeeze sphincter pressure, sensory thresholds in response to balloon distension, sphincter length, rectal compliance, and rectoanal inhibitory reflex. Sleep dysfunction was subjectively assessed by using Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Anxiety was assessed by the application of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaire. RESULTS: There were sixteen subjects without sleep dysfunction (7 women; mean age, 22 years) and eight subjects with sleep dysfunction (2 women; mean age, 22 years). There was no group difference in the volume threshold for rectoanal inhibitory reflux, rectal compliance or sphincter length (P = NS). Anal sphincter pressure did not differ between the groups (P = NS). The rectal sensitivity for different levels of stimulation did not differ between the groups (P = NS). Sleep quality as determined by PSQI correlated with rectal compliance (r = 0.66, P = 0.007). Although there was no differences in any manometric parameters between subjects with and without anxiety, the anxiety score correlated with rectal compliance (r = 0.57, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a positive association between rectal compliance and the level of subjective sleep or anxiety, sleep dysfunction did not apparently affect most of anorectal function in healthy subjects, nor did anxiety.