A135 DO VISCOUS SWALLOWS IMPROVE THE DIAGNOSTIC YIELD OF HIGH-RESOLUTION MANOMETRY?

Abstract

BackgroundEsophageal motility disorders are diagnosed using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HR-EMS) using the Chicago Classification (CC V4.0) which is based on a series of 10 normal saline swallows (LS). Viscous swallows (VS; thickened liquid/applesauce) are often performed during esophageal manometry; however, they were not included within the framework of CC V4.0. Previous literature has suggested inconsistency between LS and VS in up to 25% of studies, yet it remains unclear whether routine use of VS offers any benefit to LS alone in diagnosing manometric abnormalities according to the CC V4.0.AimsTo determine if the routine use of VS improves the diagnostic yield in HR-EMSMethodsA retrospective analysis of all HR-EMS studies performed between December 2020 and July 2021 at Kingston Health Sciences Centre was completed. Demographic information including age, sex, indication for HR-EMS, surgical history, and chronic narcotic use was documented. Each study (consisting of 10 LS and 10 VS) was reviewed independently by a Gastroenterology Fellow and Neurogastroenterologist. A manometric diagnosis using CC V4.0 was made for both LS and VS. Descriptive statistics were performed.ResultsA total of 101 HR-EMS studies were reviewed (33 male, 68 female, age range 26 to 90 years). The most common indication for HR-EMS was dysphagia (87/101) with 23/101 having 2 indications, 30/101 having 3 indications, and 43/101 patients having >3 indications. Prior upper GI tract surgery and chronic narcotic use was recorded in 9/101 and 8/101 patients, respectively. Two HR-EMS studies were excluded due to incomplete protocol. In total, 38.4% (38/99) had normal HR-EMS for both LS and VS. LS and VS that resulted in a CC V4.0 diagnosis were concordant in 37.4%(37/99) and discordant in 24.2% (24/99). Of the 24 discordant studies, 6 had a CC V4.0 diagnosis for LS (4 esophagogastric outflow obstruction (EGJOO), 1 ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), 1 diffuse esophageal spasm) and normal VS. Ten studies had normal LS and a CC V4.0 diagnosis for VS (9 IEM, 1 EGJOO). Eight had differing CC V4.0 diagnoses for LS and VS.ConclusionsLS and VS resulted in concordant diagnoses in the majority of cases. However, there were discordant results in approximately 25% of cases. In nearly half of these studies, the LS was within normal limits whereas VS yielded a diagnosis of an esophageal motility disorder which may be of clinical significance to the patient’s management. The addition of VS to HR-EMS protocol may increase diagnostic yield in symptomatic patients.Funding AgenciesNone