Comparative Prevalence of Ineffective Esophageal Motility: Impact of Chicago v4.0 vs. v3.0 Criteria.

Background and Objectives: The threshold for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) diagnosis was changed in Chicago v4.0. Our aim was to determine IEM prevalence using the new criteria and the differences between patients with definite IEM versus "inconclusive diagnosis". Materials and Methods: We retrospectively selected IEM and fragmented peristalsis (FP) patients from the high-resolution esophageal manometries (HREMs) database. Clinical, demographic data and manometric parameters were recorded. Results: Of 348 HREMs analyzed using Chicago v3.0, 12.3% of patients had IEM and 0.86% had FP. Using Chicago v4.0, 8.9% of patients had IEM (IEM-4 group). We compared them with the remaining 16 with an inconclusive diagnosis of IEM (borderline group). Dysphagia (77% vs. 44%, Z-test = 2.3, p = 0.02) and weight loss were more commonly observed in IEM-4 compared to the borderline group. The reflux symptoms were more prevalent in the borderline group (87.5% vs. 70.9%, p = 0.2). Type 2 or 3 esophagogastric junction morphology was more prevalent in the borderline group (81.2%) vs. 64.5% in IEM-4 (p = 0.23). Distal contractile integral (DCI) was lower in IEM-4 vs. the borderline group, and resting lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and mean integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) were similar. The number of ineffective swallows and failed swallows was higher in IEM-4 compared to the borderline group. Conclusions: Using Chicago v4.0, less than 10% of patients had a definite diagnosis of IEM. The dominant symptom was dysphagia. Only DCI and the number of failed and inefficient swallows were different between definite IEM patients and borderline cases.

Relevance of ineffective esophageal motility to striated esophageal muscle contraction: Studies with high-resolution manometry.

Striated esophageal muscle contraction (SEC) is important for pharyngeal swallowing and deglutition augmentation against aspiration. Its clinical relevance is unclear in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). In this study, we aimed to characterize and compare SEC in consecutive patients with and without IEM. All eligible patients were evaluated for SEC, primary and secondary peristalsis using high-resolution manometry (HRM) with one mid-esophageal injection port. Primary peristalsis was assessed with 10 5-mL liquid swallows and multiple rapid swallows (MRS), while secondary peristalsis was performed with rapid air injections of 20 mL. All peristatic parameters of HRM were measured, and SEC and its contractile integral (SECI) were evaluated. One hundred and forty patients (59.3% women, mean age 46.1 ± 13.1 years) were included. There was no difference in SECI between patients with and without IEM (p = 0.91). SECI was also similar between patients with and without secondary peristalsis for IEM (p = 0.63) or normal motility (p = 0.80). No difference in SECI was seen between patients with and without MRS for IEM (p = 0.55) or normal motility (p = 0.88). SECI was significantly higher in male patients than female patients in IEM patients (p = 0.01). SECI significantly correlated with age in patients with normal motility (r = -0.31, p = 0.01). Aging may have a negative impact on SEC in patients with normal motility, while gender difference in SECI occurs in IEM patients. Neither secondary peristalsis nor MRS influences SECI.

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.

Ineffective esophageal motility is associated with diabetes mellitus end organ complications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is known to induce a wide range of harmful effects on several organs, notably leading to ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). However, the relationship between DM and IEM is not fully elucidated. We aimed to determine the relationship between DM and IEM and to evaluate the impact of DM's end organ complications on IEM severity. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) was performed. We reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with IEM using HREM, encompassing data on demographics, DM history, antidiabetic and other medications as well as comorbidities. KEY RESULTS: Two hundred and forty six subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in any of the HREM parameters between diabetics and nondiabetics. Out of 246 patients, 92 were diabetics. Diabetics with neuropathy presented a significantly lower distal contractile integral (DCI) value compared to those without neuropathy (248.2 ± 226.7 mmHg·cm·sec vs. 375.6 ± 232.4 mmHg·cm·sec; p = 0.02) Similarly, the DCI was lower in diabetics with retinopathy compared to those without retinopathy (199.9 ± 123.1 mmHg·cm·sec vs. 335.4 ± 251.7 mmHg·cm·sec; p = 0.041). Additionally, a significant difference was observed in DCI values among DM patients with ≥2 comorbidities compared to those without comorbidities (224.8 ± 161.0 mmHg·cm·sec vs. 394.2 ± 243.6 mmHg·cm·sec; p = 0.025). Around 12.6% of the variation in DCI could be explained by its linear relationship with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), with a regression coefficient (ß) of -55.3. CONCLUSION & INFERENCES: DM is significantly associated with IEM in patients with neuropathy, retinopathy, or multiple comorbidities. These results are pivotal for tailoring patient-specific management approaches.

A practical approach to ineffective esophageal motility.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most frequently diagnosed esophageal motility abnormality and characterized by diminished esophageal peristaltic vigor and frequent weak, absent, and/or fragmented peristalsis on high-resolution esophageal manometry. Despite its commonplace occurrence, this condition can often provoke uncertainty for both patients and clinicians. Although the diagnostic criteria used to define this condition has generally become more stringent over time, it is unclear whether the updated criteria result in a more precise clinical diagnosis. While IEM is often implicated with symptoms of dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, the strength of these associations remains unclear. In this review, we share a practical approach to IEM highlighting its definition and evolution over time, commonly associated clinical symptoms, and important management and treatment considerations. We also share the significance of this condition in patients undergoing evaluation for anti-reflux surgery and consideration for lung transplantation.

A Comparison between Chicago Classification Versions 3.0 and 4.0 and Their Impact on Manometric Diagnoses in Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Cases.

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management.

Short-term results of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery with the RefluxStop device in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease and ineffective esophageal motility.

PURPOSE: In gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) requiring surgical treatment, concomitant ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is a decisive factor in surgical planning, due to concern regarding dysphagia. Anti-reflux surgery with the RefluxStop device is a promising technique. We assessed initial feasibility and clinical outcomes of RefluxStop surgery in patients with GERD and IEM. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with GERD, hiatal hernia (HH), and IEM, who underwent surgery with RefluxStop at our institution and achieved 12-month follow-up. Technique feasibility was assessed, in addition to symptom resolution (GERD-HRQL questionnaire), adverse events, HH recurrence, dysphagia, and patient satisfaction. Placement of the device was confirmed by video fluoroscopy on postoperative day 1, and at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Between June 2020 and November 2022, 20 patients with IEM underwent surgery with RefluxStop and completed 12-month follow-up. All patients reported typical symptoms of GERD, and 12 had preoperative dysphagia. The median HH length was 4.5 cm (IQR, 3.75-5). The median operating time was 59.5 min (IQR, 50.25-64) with no implant-related intra- or postoperative complications. No HH recurrence was observed. One patient reported persistent left-sided thoracic pain at 11 months post-surgery, which required diagnostic laparoscopy and adhesiolysis. Three patients reported severe postoperative dysphagia: balloon dilatation was performed towards resolution. The mean GERD-HRQL scores improved (from 40.7 at baseline to 4.8 at 3 months and 5.7 at 12 months (p <0.001)). CONCLUSION: RefluxStop surgery was feasible and offered effective treatment for this group of patients with GERD and IEM. All patients had complete resolution or significant improvement of GERD symptoms, and 90% of them were satisfied with their quality of life 1 year after surgery.

Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Improves Stratification of Ineffective Esophageal Motility Patients into Clinically Meaningful Subtypes: A Two-Center International Study.

The 4th iteration of the Chicago Classification (CC v4.0) for esophageal motility disorders offers more restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to version 3.0 (CC v3.0). In light of the updated criteria for IEM, we aimed to characterize and compare the patients who retained their IEM diagnosis to those who were reclassified as normal motility, and to evaluate the clinical impact of the newly introduced CC v4.0. We performed a retrospective case-control study. We included all individuals who underwent a high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2020 and 2021 at two centers. Consecutive studies reported as IEM according to the CC v3.0 were reanalyzed according to the CC v4.0. We compared demographics, clinical, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters. Out of 452 manometry studies, 154 (34%) met criteria for IEM as per the CC v3.0 (CC v3.0 IEM group). Of those, 39 (25%) studies were reclassified as normal studies according to the CC v4.0 (CC v4.0 normal group), while the remaining 115 studies (25% of the overall cohort) retained an IEM diagnosis (CC v4.0 IEM group). The CC v4.0 normal group had more recovered contractions during solid swallows (p = 0.01), less ineffective swallows (p = 0.04), and lower acid exposure time (p = 0.02) compared to the CC4.0 IEM group. Under CC v4.0 criteria, fewer patients are diagnosed with IEM. Those diagnosed with IEM had worse esophageal function and higher acid burden. Though further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results indicate that CC v4.0 criteria restrict the IEM diagnosis to a more clinically meaningful population.

Comparison of Diagnosis of Esophageal Motility Disorders by Chicago Classification Versions 3.0 and 4.0.

Background/Aims: We aim to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and differences between Chicago classification version 3.0 (CC v3.0) and 4.0 (CC v4.0). Methods: Patients who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) for suspected esophageal motility disorders were prospectively recruited between May 2020 and February 2021. The protocol of HRM studies included additional positional change and provocative testing designed by CC v4.0. Results: Two hundred forty-four patients were included. The median age was 59 (interquartile range, 45-66) years, and 46.7% were males. Of these, 53.3% (n = 130) and 61.9% (n = 151) were categorized as normalcy by CC v3.0 and CC v4.0, respectively. The 15 patients diagnosed of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) by CC v3.0 was changed to normalcy by position (n = 2) and symptom (n = 13) by CC v4.0. In seven patients, the ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) diagnosis by CC v3.0 was changed to normalcy by CC v4.0. The diagnostic rate of achalasia increased from 11.1% (n = 27) to 13.9% (n = 34) by CC v4.0. Of patients diagnosed IEM by CC v3.0, 4 was changed to achalasia based on the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) results by CC v4.0. Three patients (2 with absent contractility and 1 with IEM in CC v3.0) were newly diagnosed with achalasia using a provocative test and barium esophagography by CC v4.0. Conclusions: CC v4.0 is more rigorous than CC v3.0 for the diagnosis of EGJOO and IEM and diagnoses achalasia more accurately by using provocative tests and FLIP. Further studies on the treatment outcomes following diagnosis with CC v4.0 are needed.

Ineffective esophageal motility: The impact of change of criteria in Chicago Classification version 4.0 on predicting outcome after magnetic sphincter augmentation.

BACKGROUND: The most recent update of the Chicago Classification (CCv4.0) attempts to provide a more clinically relevant definition for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). The impact of this new definition on predicting outcome after antireflux surgery is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare utility of IEM diagnosis based on CCv4.0 to CCv3.0 in predicting surgical outcome after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and to assess any additional parameters that hold value in future definitions. METHODS: Records of 336 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed. Preoperative manometry files were re-analyzed using both Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) and CCv4.0 definitions of IEM. The utility of each IEM definition in predicting surgical outcome was then compared. Individual manometric components and impedance data were also assessed. KEY RESULTS: Immediate dysphagia was reported by 186 (55.4%) and persistent dysphagia by 42 (12.5%) patients. CCv3.0 IEM criteria were met by 37 (11%) and CCv4.0 IEM by 18 (5.4%) patients (p = 0.011). CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 IEM were equally poor predictors of immediate (AUC = 0.503 vs. 0.512, p = 0.7482) and persistent (AUC = 0.519 vs. 0.510, p = 0.7544) dysphagia. The predicted dysphagia probability of less than 70% bolus clearance (BC) was 17.4%, higher than CCv4.0 IEM at 16.7%. When BC was incorporated into CCv4.0 IEM criteria, the probability increased significantly to 30.0% (p = 0.0042). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 of IEM are poor predictors of dysphagia after MSA. Adding BC to the new definition improves its predictive utility and should be considered in future definitions.

Ineffective esophageal motility is associated with acute rejection after lung transplantation independent of gastroesophageal reflux.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux is associated with poorer outcomes after lung transplant, likely through recurrent aspiration and allograft injury. Although prior studies have demonstrated a relationship between impedance-pH results and transplant outcomes, the role of esophageal manometry in the assessment of lung transplant patients remains debated, and the impact of esophageal dysmotility on transplant outcomes is unclear. Of particular interest is ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and its associated impact on esophageal clearance. AIM: To assess the relationship between pre-transplant IEM diagnosis and acute rejection after lung transplantation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of lung transplant recipients at a tertiary care center between 2007 and 2018. Patients with pre-transplant anti-reflux surgery were excluded. Manometric and reflux diagnoses were recorded from pre-transplant esophageal function testing. Time-to-event analysis using Cox proportional hazards model was applied to evaluate outcome of first episode of acute cellular rejection, defined histologically per International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines. Subjects not meeting this endpoint were censored at time of post-transplant anti-reflux surgery, last clinic visit, or death. Fisher's exact test for binary variables and student's t-test for continuous variables were performed to assess for differences between groups. RESULTS: Of 184 subjects (54% men, mean age: 58, follow-up: 443 person-years) met criteria for inclusion. Interstitial pulmonary fibrosis represented the predominant pulmonary diagnosis (41%). During the follow-up period, 60 subjects (33.5%) developed acute rejection. The all-cause mortality was 16.3%. Time-to-event univariate analyses demonstrated significant association between IEM and acute rejection [hazard ratio (HR): 1.984, 95%CI: 1.03-3.30, P = 0.04], confirmed on Kaplan-Meier curve. On multivariable analysis, IEM remained independently associated with acute rejection, even after controlling for potential confounders such as the presence of acid and nonacid reflux (HR: 2.20, 95%CI: 1.18-4.11, P = 0.01). Nonacid reflux was also independently associated with acute rejection on both univariate (HR: 2.16, 95%CI: 1.26-3.72, P = 0.005) and multivariable analyses (HR: 2.10, 95%CI: 1.21-3.64, P = 0.009), adjusting for the presence of IEM. CONCLUSION: Pre-transplant IEM was associated with acute rejection after transplantation, even after controlling for acid and nonacid reflux. Esophageal motility testing may be considered in lung transplant to predict outcomes.

Acute transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) augments esophageal contractility in patients with weak peristalsis.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation (LTx) remains controversial in patients with absent peristalsis (AP) given the increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux (GER), and chronic lung allograft dysfunction. Furthermore, specific treatments to facilitate LTx in those with AP have not been widely described. Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation (TES) has been reported to improve foregut contractility in LTx patients and therefore we hypothesize that TES may augment the esophageal motility of patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). METHODS: We included 49 patients, 14 with IEM, 5 with AP, and 30 with normal motility. All subjects underwent standard high-resolution manometry and intraluminal impedance (HRIM) with additional swallows as TES was delivered. RESULTS: TES induced a universal impedance change observable in real-time by a characteristic spike activity. TES significantly augmented the contractile vigor of the esophagus measured by the distal contractile integral (DCI) in patients with IEM [median DCI (IQR) 0 (238) mmHg-cm-s off TES vs. 333 (858) mmHg-cm-s on TES; p = .01] and normal peristalsis [median DCI (IQR) 1545 (1840) mmHg-cm-s off TES vs. 2109 (2082) mmHg-cm-s on TES; p = .01]. Interestingly, TES induced measurable contractile activity (DCI > 100 mmHg-cm-s) in three out of five patients with AP [median DCI (IQR) 0 (0) mmHg-cm-s off TES vs. 0 (182) mmHg-cm-s on TES; p < .001]. CONCLUSION: TES acutely augmented contractile vigor in patients with normal and weak/ AP. The use of TES may positively impact LTx candidacy, and outcomes for patients with IEM/AP. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of TES in this patient population.

The Relationship Between Vocal Fold Mobility Disorders and Ineffective Esophageal Motility.

OBJECTIVE: Deglutition, speech production, and airway protection are extraordinarily complex, interrelated functions that are coordinated, in large part, by the motor and sensory innervation of CN X. Previous studies assessing the relationship between neurogenic voice disorders and dysphagia have focused on the risk of aspiration due to glottic insufficiency and the association of vocal fold hypomobility (VFH) with systemic neurologic disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between VFH disorders and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). METHODS: Adult voice patients who underwent laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) and dual 24-hour pH impedance with high-resolution manometry (HRM) testing were included in the study. Subjects were assigned to one of two groups based on the presence or absence of moderate-to-severe RLN and/or SLN VFH (Mo-SLNH/RLNH) using results from six muscle LEMG tests. In subjects with Mo-SLNH/RLNH, there was 0-60% muscle recruitment on LEMG, whereas control subjects in the non-Mo-SLNH/RLNH group demonstrated 61-100% muscle recruitment. Analysis of mild-to-severe VFH (80% muscle recruitment or less) was also performed in a similar manner. The prevalence of IEM, defined using Chicago Classification Version 4.0 (CCv4.0), was compared between groups, as were HRM parameters. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two subjects were included (37.7% male/62.3% female, mean age of 43.88 ± 17.285). No differences in IEM prevalence were found when stratifying for cases of mild-to-severe VFH. However, there was significantly higher percentage of IEM in those with Mo-SLNH/RLNH. Mo-SLNH/RLNH subjects demonstrated higher rates of weak swallows and inefficient swallows, as well as lower IBP and UES residual pressures on HRM. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Mo-SLNH/RLNH demonstrated a significantly higher prevalence of IEM. Those with mild-to-severe VFH did not. Higher rates of ineffective and weak swallows, and lower IBP and UES residual pressures among Mo-SLNH/RLNH subjects suggest a possible connection between Mo-SLNH/RLNH and IEM disorders. These manometric differences were more prominent with sub-stratification of the Mo-SLNH/RLNH group by IEM. Additional research is advised.

Characteristics of reflux and gastric electrical activity in gastroesophageal reflux disease with ineffective esophageal motility.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains unknown, and abnormal esophageal motility often coexists with abnormal gastric motility. We aimed to investigate the role of IEM in GERD and its relationship with gastric electrical activity. METHODS: Patients diagnosed as GERD based on GERD-questionnaire score ≥8 in our hospital from January 2020 to June 2022 were included. All patients underwent 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring, high-resolution manometry, and electrogastrogram and were categorized into the normal esophageal motility (NEM) and IEM groups, respectively. Reflux characteristics and gastric electric activity were compared between the two groups, and the correlation between gastric electric activity and reflux was analyzed. RESULTS: Acid exposure time, total reflux episodes, and DeMeester score in the IEM group were higher than those in the NEM group. Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance was significantly lower in the IEM group. Compared with the NEM group, the power ratio (PR) of fundus, antrum and pylorus and premeal and postmeal normal wave ratio of antrum were significantly lower in IEM. The total reflux episodes were negatively correlated with the PR of fundus and pylorus, and the DeMeester score was negatively correlated with the PR of corpus and pylorus. CONCLUSIONS: IEM may lead to increased reflux, resulting in esophageal mucosal damage. There may be consistency between abnormal esophageal motility and gastric motility.

From Chicago classification v3.0 to v4.0: Diagnostic changes and clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: The Chicago Classification (CC) used to define esophageal motility disorders in high-resolution manometry (HRM) has evolved over time. Our aim was to compare the frequency of motility disorders diagnosed with the last two versions (CCv3.0 and CCv4.0) and to evaluate symptoms severity according to the diagnoses. METHODS: From June to December 2020, patients who underwent esophageal HRM with swallows in supine and sitting positions were included. HRM studies were retrospectively analyzed using CCv3.0 and CCv4.0. Symptoms severity and quality of life were assessed with validated standardized questionnaires. KEY RESULTS: Among the 130 patients included (73 women, mean age 52 years), motility disorder diagnoses remained unchanged in 102 patients (78%) with both CC. The 3 patients with esophago-gastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) with CCv3.0 were EGJOO, ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and normal with CCv4.0. Twenty-four out of 63 IEM diagnosed with the CCv3.0 (38%) turned into normal motility with the CCv4.0. Whatever the CC used, brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire score was significantly higher in patients with EGJ relaxation disorders compared to those with IEM (25 (0-34) vs 0 (0-19), p = 0.01). Gastro-Esophageal Reflux disease questionnaire (GERD-Q) score was higher in patients with IEM with both CC compared to those who turned to normal with CCv4.0. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: While motility disorders diagnoses remained mainly unchanged with both CC, IEM was less frequent with CCv4.0 compared to CCv3.0. The higher GERD-Q score in IEM patients with CCv4.0 suggests that CCv4.0 might identify IEM more likely associated with GERD.

Clinical efficacy and mechanism of transcutaneous neuromodulation on ineffective esophageal motility in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal motility disorder is one of the pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The clinical and functional relationship between the ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and GERD have been found. PPI is a widely used drug of this diaease, but some patients have poor efficacy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and possible mechanism of Transcutaneous Neuromodulation in these patients. METHODS: Fifty-six patients with GERD with IEM were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups, one group was TN ST-36 group, the other group was sham TN group. The GERD questionnaire (GerdQ), quality of life score, MOS item short from health survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were used to assess the severity of symptoms. High-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) test was performed to assess low esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and distal contractile integral (DCI). The heart rate variability (HRV) test was performed to assess autonomic nervous function. KEY RESULTS: Compared with sham TN, chronic TN treatment decreased the GERD-Q score (p < 0.001). The anxiety score (p = 0.058) and depression score (p = 0.156) were decreased, but there were no statistical differences. Chronic TN treatment also significantly improved the quality of life of patients, mainly in physical function, physical pain, overall health, vitality, social function, emotional function, and mental health. Acute TN treatment increased the DCI (p < 0.001) and LES pressure (p < 0.001) significantly and decreased the combined percentage of failed and weak peristalsis (p < 0.001). Concurrently, acute TN enhanced vagal activity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: IEM is an important link in the pathogenesis of GERD. Chronic TN treatment can significantly improve the clinical symptoms of patients. Acute TN treatment can significantly increase LES pressure and DCI and reduce the frequency of esophageal lost peristalsis and weak peristalsis. The improvement of esophageal motility in GERD patients with IEM by TN treatment may be related to the regulation of autonomic nervous function.

The Supportive Role of Provocative Maneuvers and Impedance Clearance in Detecting Ineffective Esophageal Motility.

Background: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is one of the most common esophageal motility disorders. However, the definition of IEM has evolved. Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) made IEM parameters more stringent with greater than 70% of ineffective wet swallows (WS) necessary to diagnose conclusive IEM. Of the ineffective swallows, 50-70% are deemed "inconclusive cases". This study sought to determine whether provocative maneuvers, including multiple rapid swallows (MRS) and apple viscous swallows (AVS), and impedance clearance can provide supportive information for inconclusive IEM disorders based on CCv4.0. Methods: Esophageal motility data on 100 patients were analyzed. All patients completed WS and at least one additional swallow test (MRS and/or AVS). Patients were classified as having conclusive IEM, inconclusive IEM, or normal motility. IEM features detected on MRS/AVS and incomplete bolus clearance were recorded. Percentage of agreement between IEM features and incomplete bolus clearance was calculated for each motility group. Results: Ten patients had conclusive IEM, nine had inconclusive IEM, and 32 had normal motility. There was 70% agreement between IEM features and incomplete bolus clearance with conclusive IEM, 33% agreement with inconclusive IEM, and 9% agreement with normal motility. There was significantly more agreement in the conclusive and inconclusive IEM groups than in the normal motility group (P = 0.0003). Conclusions: Combinational follow-up testing with provocative maneuvers and impedance clearance may assist with risk stratification of IEM patients and assist in further management of inconclusive IEM. MRS and AVS can detect unique IEM features that may help with preoperative management of inconclusive IEM.

High prevalence of esophagitis in patients with severe ineffective esophageal motility: need for a new diagnostic cutoff.

Background: A new classification criterion for diagnosing ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) was proposed at the 2018 Stanford symposium, but limited data exists about the utility of this criterion. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 3826 patients treated at the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hanoi, Vietnam, between March 2018 and May 2020. Patients were classified as having normal motility, mild IEM, severe IEM, or absent contractility based on the Chicago classification version 3.0 and the new IEM criterion (severe IEM was defined as having >70% ineffective swallows). We examined the association between these 4 motility subgroups and the presence of erosive esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus, using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The mean age of the study sample was 44.7 years and 66.3% were women. The prevalence of symptoms, hiatal hernia, and Helicobacter pylori-positive patients was similar in the 4 study groups. The 4-second integrated relaxation pressures and lower esophageal sphincter resting pressures were lower in patients with severe IEM and absent contractility. Severe IEM and absent contractility, but not mild IEM, were significantly associated with Los Angeles (LA) grade B-D esophagitis (relative risk ratio [RRR] for severe IEM 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.80; and RRR for absent contractility 2.37, 95%CI 1.12-5.04). None of the hypomotility subgroups were associated with LA grade A esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus. Conclusions: Patients with severe IEM have a high prevalence of severe erosive esophagitis. These findings suggest the need for a more meaningful classification criterion for IEM.

Supragastric belching: Pathogenesis, diagnostic issues and treatment.

Belching is defined as an audible escape of air from the esophagus or the stomach into the pharynx. It becomes pathologic if it is excessive and becomes bothersome. According to Rome IV diagnostic criteria, there is a belching disorder when one experiences bothersome belching (severe enough to impact on usual activities) more than 3 days a week. Esophageal impedance can differentiate between gastric and supragastric belching. The aim of this review was to provide data on pathogenesis and diagnosis of supragastric belching and study its relationship with gastroesophageal reflux disease and psychological factors. Treatment options for supragastric belching are also presented.

Esophageal Motility Disorders: Current Approach to Diagnostics and Therapeutics.

Dysphagia is a common symptom with significant impact on quality of life. Our diagnostic armamentarium was primarily limited to endoscopy and barium esophagram until the advent of manometric techniques in the 1970s, which provided the first reliable tool for assessment of esophageal motor function. Since that time, significant advances have been made over the last 3 decades in our understanding of various esophageal motility disorders due to improvement in diagnostics with high-resolution esophageal manometry. High-resolution esophageal manometry has improved the sensitivity for detecting achalasia and has also enhanced our understanding of spastic and hypomotility disorders of the esophageal body. In this review, we discuss the current approach to diagnosis and therapeutics of various esophageal motility disorders.