Chicago Classification Version Research Articles

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.

Dysphagia associated with esophageal wall thickening in patients with nonspecific high-resolution manometry findings: Understanding motility beyond the Chicago classification version 4.0.

Previous studies have demonstrated that 50% of patients with normal high-resolution manometry (HRM) findings or ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) may have abnormal functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) results. However, the specific HRM findings associated with abnormal FLIP results are unknown. Herein, we investigated the relationship between nonspecific manometry findings and abnormal FLIP results. We retrospectively analyzed 684 patients who underwent HRM at a tertiary care center in Seoul, Korea, based on the Chicago Classification version 4.0 protocol. Among the 684 patients, 398 had normal HRM findings or IEM. Of these 398 patients, eight showed esophageal wall thickening on endoscopic ultrasonography or computed tomography; however, no abnormalities were seen during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Among these eight patients, seven showed repetitive simultaneous contractions (RSCs) in at least one of the two positions: 61% (±29%) in 10 swallows in the supine position and 51% (±30%) in five swallows in the upright position. Four patients who underwent FLIP had a significantly decreased esophagogastric junction distensibility index (1.0 ± 0.5 at 60 mL). Two of these patients underwent per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) due to a lack of response to medication. Esophageal muscle biopsy revealed hypertrophic muscle with marginal eosinophil infiltration. A subset of patients (2%) with normal HRM findings or IEM and RSCs experienced dysphagia associated with poor distensibility of the thickened esophageal wall. FLIP assessment or combined HRM and impedance protocols may help better define these patients who may respond well to POEM.

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

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

Esophageal motility disorder - has Chicago classification v4.0 simplified our management?

Addressing dysphagia is vital due to its prevalence and impact on healthcare expenditure. While high resolution manometry (HRM) effectively evaluates esophageal dysphagia, its role in oropharyngeal dysphagia and upper esophageal sphincter (UES) dysfunction remains debated. The fourth iteration of the Chicago classification (CC) offers an algorithmic approach for diagnosing abnormal motor patterns via HRM. This review assesses the CC's impact on dysphagia management. The Chicago classification version 4.0 emphasizes auxiliary and provocative techniques when the algorithm falls short of a conclusive diagnosis. It introduces stricter criteria for previously ambiguous conditions like ineffective motility and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. This version also introduces the concept of conclusive and inconclusive classifications based on symptoms, provocation maneuvers, and supportive testing minimizing ambiguity. The Chicago classification v4.0 remains a useful tool for the diagnosis of well characterized esophageal motility disorders. However, major limitations include reliance on HRM and a focus on distal esophagus contractile characteristics without considering proximal esophagus or upper esophageal sphincter, both of which can sometimes be the only evident abnormality in patients with dysphagia. Despite efforts to reduce ambiguity, diagnostic challenges persist. These limitations can be addressed in future updates.

Relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter in response to reduced volume distension during FLIP Panometry.

The esophageal response to stepwise distension during the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) Panometry study often parallels high-resolution manometry (HRM) motility diagnoses. This study aimed to describe the changes in FLIP metrics during FLIP emptying, that is, reduced volume distension. Adult patients who completed FLIP and HRM for esophageal motility evaluation were included. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening parameters were assessed during stepwise FLIP filling to volumes of 60 mL ("filling 60 mL"), then 70 mL, and then back to 60 mL ("emptying 60 mL"). HRM studies were analyzed per Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0). Among 265 patients included, HRM/CCv4.0 diagnoses included achalasia in 80 patients (30%), normal motility in 70 (26%), and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) in 43 (16%). EGJ-distensibility index (DI) and EGJ diameter were greater during emptying 60 mL than filling 60 mL in achalasia, normal motility, and IEM (p values <0.002). If applying the emptying 60 mL EGJ-DI (vs. filling 60 mL EGJ-DI), EGJ opening classification changed from reduced EGJ opening to borderline EGJ opening in 31% of achalasia patients and in 2% of patients with normal motility or IEM. EGJ opening classification was unchanged in 69% achalasia and 96% of normal motility/IEM. This study suggests that isotonic or auxotonic relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter occurs with reduced volume distension in patients with achalasia and normal motility. The study also supports the importance of utilizing a standardized FLIP motility study protocol (i.e., controlled, stepwise filling to 50 mL, 60 mL, then 70 mL) to provide reliable and generalizable FLIP metrics to facilitate diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders.

Association of esophageal motility disorder symptoms with Chicago classification versions 3.0 and 4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry: A single-center experience from Saudi Arabia.

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The Chicago Classification (CC) was developed as a robust framework to enable clinicians to better understand and classify the nature of motility disorders. Previous studies have primarily focused on the CC version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and data regarding the correlation between symptoms and CC version 4.0 (CCv4.0) in the Saudi Arabian population are lacking. This study aimed to assess the correlation between symptoms and CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) in Saudi Arabia, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both classifications. A total of 182 patients presenting with esophageal symptoms were included in this study. HRM was performed to assess esophageal motility, and patients' reported symptoms were recorded. The association between HRM findings and symptomatic variables was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Variability was observed in the diagnostic performance of symptomatic variables for major EMDs. CCv4.0 demonstrated a higher sensitivity for dysphagia than CCv3.0; however, it exhibited lower sensitivity to atypical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) exhibited the highest specificity and PPV, whereas typical GERD symptoms showed lower specificity. CCv4.0 demonstrated potential improvements in sensitivity for dysphagia, but lower sensitivity for atypical GERD symptoms, compared with CCv3.0. These insights provide guidance for clinicians in Saudi Arabia and contribute to understanding the diagnostic performance of CCv3.0 and CCv4.0.

True peristaltic recovery is uncommon following treatment, particularly endoscopic dilation for achalasia cardia, though pseudo-recovery often occurs.

Relieving esophagogastric junction (EGJ) obstruction has been the focus of treatment for achalasia cardia. The recovery of peristalsis has been an elusive goal. Studies analyzing post-intervention peristaltic recovery have several limitations such as theuse of conventional manometry or lack of standard definitions of peristalsis. Accordingly, we undertook this study to analyze frequency and pattern of peristaltic recovery following treatment for achalasia cardia on high-resolution manometry (HRM) and standard Chicago definition of peristalsis. Pre and post-intervention HRM records of 71 treatment-naive patients diagnosed as achalasia cardia were retrospectively analyzed. Records with pre and post-intervention HRM on different systems (e.g. solid state and water perfusion) and those with inadequate information were excluded. All HRMs were interpreted as per Chicago classification version 3.0. After pneumatic dilation (PD) or laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM), pseudorecovery of peristalsis was defined as any contraction at least 3cm in length along 20mmHg isobaric contour with a distal latency of less than 4.5seconds. True recovery and premature contractions were defined by standard Chicago classification v3.0 criteria. Change in diagnosis was observed in 38 of 71 (53.5%) patients after intervention. While pseudo-peristaltic recovery occurred in 11 of 71 (15.5%) patients, only three (4.2%) had a true recovery. Another nine (12.7%) patients showed new premature contractions. True peristaltic recovery is uncommon in achalasia cardia following intervention, particularly PD. Pseudo-peristaltic recovery is more common. Further research is warranted on this issue.

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Hypercontractile Esophagus: Clinical and Manometric Features From a Multicenter Korean Cohort

Hypercontractile esophagus (HE) is a heterogeneous disorder with variable clinical presentations and a natural course, leading to management challenges. This study aims to investigate the characteristics of HE and evaluate its treatment outcomes. Four Korean referral centers recruited subjects with at least 1 hypercontractile swallow (distal contraction integral > 8000 mmHg·s·cm) in this retrospective observational study. Subjects were classified according to the Chicago classification version 2.0 (CC v2.0), CC v3.0, and CC v4.0. criteria. The clinical and manometric features were also investigated. The treatment modalities and outcomes of subjects with CC v4.0 were evaluated. In total, 59 subjects with at least 1 hypercontractile swallow were analyzed. Among them, 30 (50.8%) had increased integrated relaxation pressure values without meeting the criteria for achalasia. Among the remaining 29 patients, 6 (20.7%) had only 1 hypercontractile swallowing symptom (CC v2.0) and 23 (79.3%) met both the CC v3.0 and v4.0 criteria for HE. Dysphagia (91.3%) was the most prevalent symptom, followed by chest pain (56.5%), regurgitation (52.2%), globus (34.8%), heartburn (21.7%), and belching (8.7%). Twenty (87.0%) patients received medical treatment, and 8 (47.1%) and 5 (29.4%) showed moderate and significant improvements, respectively. Proton pump inhibitors were the most common option (n = 15, 65.2%), followed by calcium channel blockers (n = 6, 26.1%). One patient received peroral endoscopic myotomy and showed significant symptom improvement. Sixty-one percent of patients who meet the diagnostic criteria for the high-resolution manometry are diagnosed with symptomatic HE based CC v4.0. Chest pain and regurgitation were also observed in over half of them. The overall medical treatment efficacy was moderate.

Diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility According to Chicago Classification Version 4.0: More Stringent Criteria, but Also New Difficulties

Diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility According to Chicago Classification Version 4.0: More Stringent Criteria, but Also New Difficulties

Interrater Reliability of Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry and High-Resolution Manometry for the Assessment of Esophageal Motility Disorders.

High-resolution manometry (HRM) and functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) are primary and/or complementary diagnostic tools for the evaluation of esophageal motility. We aimed to assess the interrater agreement and accuracy of HRM and FLIP interpretations. Esophageal motility specialists from multiple institutions completed the interpretation of 40 consecutive HRM and 40 FLIP studies. Interrater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables and Fleiss' κ statistics for nominal variables. Accuracies of rater interpretation were assessed using the consensus of 3 experienced raters as the reference standard. Fifteen raters completed the HRM and FLIP studies. An excellent interrater agreement was seen in supine median integral relaxation pressure (ICC 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98), and a good agreement was seen with the assessment of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow, peristalsis, and assignment of a Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis using HRM (κ = 0.71, 0.75, and 0.70, respectively). An excellent interrater agreement for EGJ distensibility index and maximum diameter (0.91 [0.90-0.94], 0.92 [0.89-0.95]) was seen, and a moderate-to-good agreement was seen in the assignment of EGJ opening classification, contractile response pattern, and motility classification (κ = 0.68, 0.56, and 0.59, respectively) on FLIP. Rater accuracy for Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis on HRM was 82% (95% confidence interval 78%-84%) and for motility diagnosis on FLIP Panometry was 78% (95% confidence interval 72%-81%). Our study demonstrates high levels of interrater agreement and accuracy in the interpretation of HRM and FLIP metrics and moderate-to-high levels for motility classification in FLIP, supporting the use of these approaches for primary or complementary evaluation of esophageal motility disorders.

The Relationship Between Vocal Fold Mobility Disorders and Ineffective Esophageal Motility

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). 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. 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. 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.

A comprehensive analysis of partial peristalsis recovery after peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients with achalasia.

To determine whether peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) improves esophageal peristalsis and to investigate the association between recovery of esophageal peristalsis after POEM and clinical features of the patients. In this single-center retrospective study, data were collected from medical records of the patients with achalasia who underwent POEM between January 2014 and May 2016. Demographics data, high-resolution esophageal manometry parameters, Eckardt score, and gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GERD-Q) score were collected. Weak and fragmented contraction was defined as partial recovery of esophageal peristalsis based on the Chicago classification version 3.0. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with the partial recovery of peristalsis after POEM. A total of 103 patients were enrolled. Esophageal contractile activity was observed in the distal two-thirds of the esophagus in 24 patients. The Eckardt score, integrated relaxation pressure, and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure were significantly decreased after POEM. Multivariate analysis revealed that preprocedural LES resting pressure (P = 0.013) and preprocedural Eckardt score (P = 0.002) were related to the partial recovery of peristalsis after POEM. Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux and reflux esophagitis after POEM were less frequent in those with partial recovery of peristalsis (both P < 0.05). Normalization of esophagogastric junction relaxation pressure achieved by POEM is associated with the partial recovery of esophageal peristalsis in patients with achalasia. Preprocedural LES resting pressure and the Eckardt score are predictive of the recovery of esophageal peristalsis.

Comparing Patients Diagnosed With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by the Chicago Classification Version 3.0 and Version 4.0 Criteria.

The Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is more stringent than the Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) definition. We aimed to compare the clinical and manometric features of patients meeting CCv4.0 IEM criteria (group 1) versus patients meeting CCv3.0 IEM but not CCv4.0 criteria (group 2). We collected retrospective clinical, manometric, endoscopic, and radiographic data on 174 adults diagnosed with IEM from 2011 to 2019. Complete bolus clearance was defined as evidence of exit of the bolus by impedance measurement at all distal recording sites. Barium studies included barium swallow, modified barium swallow, and barium upper gastrointestinal series studies, and collected data from these reports include abnormal motility and delay in the passage of liquid barium or barium tablet. These data along with other clinical and manometric data were analyzed using comparison and correlation tests. All records were reviewed for repeated studies and the stability of the manometric diagnoses. Most demographic and clinical variables were not different between the groups. A lower mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was correlated with greater percent of ineffective swallows in group 1 (n = 128) (r = -0.2495, P = 0.0050) and not in group 2. In group 1, increased percent of failed contractions on manometry was associated with increased incomplete bolus clearance (r = 0.3689, P = 0.0001). No such association was observed in group 2. A lower median integrated relaxation pressure was correlated with greater percent of ineffective contractions in group 1 (r = -0.1825, P = 0.0407) and not group 2. Symptom of dysphagia was more prevalent (51.6% versus 69.6%, P = 0.0347) in group 2. Dysphagia was not associated with intrabolus pressure, bolus clearance, barium delay, or weak or failed contractions in either group. In the small number of subjects with repeated studies, a CCv4.0 diagnosis appeared more stable over time. CCv4.0 IEM was associated with worse esophageal function indicated by reduced bolus clearance. Most other features studied did not differ. Symptom presentation cannot predict if patients are likely to have IEM by CCv4.0. Dysphagia was not associated with worse motility, suggesting it may not be primarily dependent on bolus transit.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Ineffective Esophageal Motility by Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Compared to Chicago Classification Version 3.0

Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) of esophageal motility disorders developed a more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) than version 3.0. We studied the implications of the new diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of IEM, and clinically characterized and compared the population of patients who no longer meet diagnostic criteria for IEM to those who retain the diagnosis. We included all consecutively performed high-resolution esophageal impedance manometries from 2014 to 2021. Three cohorts of patients with IEM were created: Patients with IEM by Chicago classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0; CC3 group), by CCv4.0 only (CC4 group), and by CCv3.0 who are now considered normal (Normal group). Demographics, manometric and reflux parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared. A total of 594 manometries were analyzed. Of those, 66 (11.1%) met criteria for IEM by CCv3.0 (CC3), 41 (62.0%) retained an IEM diagnosis using CCv4.0 criteria (CC4), while 25 (38.0%) patients no longer met criteria for IEM (Normal). The CC4 group had higher esophageal acid exposure, especially supine (% time - 18.9% vs 2.2%; P = 0.005), less adequate peristaltic reserve (22.0% vs 88.0%; P = 0.003), and higher Demeester score (49.0 vs 21.2; P = 0.017) compared to the Normal group. There was no difference in bolus clearance between the groups. IEM under CCv4.0 has a stronger association with pathologic reflux, especially supine reflux, and inadequate peristaltic reserve, but impairment in bolus clearance is unchanged when compared with IEM diagnosed based on CCv3.0. Further studies are required to determine the implications of these findings on management strategies.

[Gastroenterology and hepatology: what's new in 2022].

The field of gastroenterology and hepatology is evolving constantly. In 2022, numerous landmark studies have been published in all its subspecialities including hepatology, functional diseases, interventional endoscopy, and inflammatory bowel disease. Among the most significant advances are the antiviral treatment for hepatitis D, the new Chicago classification version 4 for esophageal motility disorders, the first biological treatment for eosinophilic esophagitis, a randomized controlled trial about the efficacy of screening colonoscopy, novel endoscopic techniques such as G-POEM or endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and emerging IBD therapies such as ozanimod, upadacitinib or anti-IL23 antibodies.

Estimating Probability for Esophageal Obstruction: A Diagnostic Decision Support Tool Applying Machine Learning to Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry.

Background/AimsThis study aimed to develop a diagnostic tool using machine learning to apply functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry data to determine the probability of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) obstruction as determined using the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) and high-resolution manometry (HRM).MethodsFive hundred and fifty-seven adult patients that completed FLIP and HRM (with a conclusive CCv4.0 assessment of EGJ outflow) and 35 asymptomatic volunteers (“controls”) were included. EGJ opening was evaluated with 16-cm FLIP performed during sedated endoscopy via EGJ-distensibility index and maximum EGJ diameter. HRM was classified according to the CCv4.0 as conclusive disorders of EGJ outflow or normal EGJ outflow (timed barium esophagram applied when required and available). The probability tool utilized Bayesian additive regression treesBART, which were evaluated using a leave-one-out approach and a holdout test set.ResultsPer HRM and CCv4.0, 243 patients had a conclusive disorder of EGJ outflow while 314 patients (and all 35 controls) had normal EGJ outflow. The model accuracy to predict EGJ obstruction (based on leave-one-out/holdout test set, respectively) was 89%/90%, with 87%/85% sensitivity, 92%/97% specificity, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95/0.97. A free, open-source tool to calculate probability for EGJ obstruction using FLIP metrics is available at https://www.wklytics.com/nmgi/prob_flip.html.ConclusionsApplication of FLIP metrics utilizing a probabilistic approach incorporates the diagnostic confidence (or uncertainty) into the clinical interpretation of EGJ obstruction. This tool can provide clinical decision support during application of FLIP Panometry for evaluation of esophageal motility disorders.

Ineffective Esophageal Motility and Dysphagia after Nissen Fundoplication: The Impact of New Chicago Classification Version 4.0 on Ability to Predict Outcome

INTRODUCTION: The recently introduced Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4) uses more restrictive criteria for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). This new definition incorporates the following components: ≥50% failed swallows, >70% fragmented swallows, and >70% weak swallows. The impact of this update on surgical outcomes is unclear. This study compares the utility of CCv3 and CCv4 in predicting dysphagia after Nissen fundoplication. METHODS: This is a review of 206 patients who underwent manometry before operation and completed preoperative and postoperative GERD-Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) questionnaires. Manometry tracings were reanalyzed to define IEM based on CCv3 and CCv4 criteria. Persistent dysphagia was defined as ≥3 on the dysphagia-specific item on the 1-year postoperative GERD-HRQL. The utility of CCv4 IEM in predicting dysphagia after Nissen fundoplication was compared with that of CCv3 IEM. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, dysphagia was reported by 18.4% of patients. Under CCv3, 41.3% of patients were found to have IEM in comparison with 35.4% under CCv4. IEM was a reliable marker of dysphagia using either classification (Table). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed no difference in overall predictability between 2 classifications (p = 0.686). The most common abnormal component of IEM in CCv4 was ≥50% failed swallows. The individual components had similar accuracy in predicting dysphagia: ≥50% failed swallows (75.2%), >70% fragmented swallows (82.0%), and >70% weak swallows (76.2%). CONCLUSION: The more restrictive diagnosis of IEM under CCv4 does not impact the ability to predict dysphagia after Nissen fundoplication. The minimal improvement in specificity comes at the modest cost of sensitivity. Table - Sensitivity Specificity Accuracy Area under ROC curve (95% CI) Chicago Classification 3.0 (CCv3.0) 60.5% 63.1% 62.6% 0.62 (0.53, 0.71) Chicago Classification 4.0 (CCv4.0) 52.6% 68.5% 65.3% 0.61

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Different patterns of esophageal motility disorders among patients with dysphagia and normal endoscopy: A 2-center experience.

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) are the main etiology of nonobstructive dysphagia (NOD), but they are underestimated in Egypt. High-resolution manometry (HRM) with Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CC v3.0) is the current gold standard diagnostic modality to assess EMD in patients with NOD. In this HRM-based study, we aimed to classify EMD among Egyptian patients and explore the relationship between the severity of symptoms and the various groups of EMD. From January 2020 to January 2021, patients with dysphagia were subjected to diagnostic workup, which included symptom questionnaire for Eckardt score, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, barium esophagogram, and HRM. All patients were categorized based on the HRM results using CC version 3.0 after exclusion of those with obstructive esophageal lesions. Of 252 patients with dysphagia, 55 patients with NOD were analyzed according to CC version 3.0. Achalasia was diagnosed in 31 patients (56.4%) (type I: 18 [58.06%]; type II: 9 [29.03%], and type III: 4 [12.9%]), 3 patients (5.5%) with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, 2 patients (3.6%) with absent contractility, 4 patients (7.3%) with distal esophageal spasm, 7 patients (12.7%) with ineffective esophageal motility, and 8 patients (14.5%) with normal manometry. Patients with achalasia experienced significantly high regurgitation (96.8% vs 70.8%; P = .016) compared with those without achalasia. Achalasia was the most common EMD in Egyptian patients with NOD. Eckardt score was higher in patients with outflow obstruction and major motor disorder, but it could not differentiate different categories of CC of EMD. HRM is effective in characterization of EMD.