Chicago Classification Version Research Articles

Additional Diagnostic Yield of the Rapid Drink Challenge in Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Compared With Version 3.0.

Chicago classification version 4.0 enhances the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders using position change and provocative tests such as multiple rapid swallows and a rapid drink challenge. This study investigates the diagnostic role of the rapid drink challenge based on Chicago classification 4.0 using a functional luminal imaging probe to estimate the cutoff value. This study included 570 patients who underwent esophageal manometry with a rapid drink challenge between January 2019 and October 2022. The diagnostic flow was analyzed according to Chicago classification 4.0. Ninety-nine patients (38, achalasia; 11, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction; 7, ineffective esophageal motility; 1, hypercontractile esophagus; and 42, normal esophageal function) failed the rapid drink challenge. Among the 453 participants, 50 and 86 were diagnosed with achalasia and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, respectively, using Chicago classification 4.0. In 249/453 (55.0%) patients initially diagnosed with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction using Chicago classification 3.0, the diagnosis was changed to achalasia (n = 28), hypercontractile esophagus (n = 7), ineffective esophageal motility (n = 7), or normal esophageal function (n = 121) using Chicago classification 4.0. Rapid drink challenge-integrated relaxation pressure's diagnostic cutoff value was 19 mmHg. Nine patients had diagnoses changed after the rapid drink challenge, including 3 with panesophageal pressurization. Chicago classification 4.0 increased the diagnostic yield of the rapid drink challenge by 2.0% (9/453 patients). However, the rapid drink challenge had a failure rate of 17.9% (99/552 patients). Given the relatively low diagnostic yield and high failure rate of the rapid drink challenge, we recommend adopting an individualized approach to manometry.

Four-Dimensional Impedance Manometry in Esophageal Motility Disorders.

Four-dimensional high-resolution impedance manometry (4D HRM) uses impedance to estimate esophageal luminal cross-sectional area and track nadir impedance to measure intrabolus pressure (IBP). We aimed to determine whether 4D HRM metrics could define abnormal esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening between Chicago Classification version 4.0 motility disorders and compare 4D HRM with functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) metrics. Symptomatic adult patients who completed high-resolution impedance manometry and FLIP were included and compared with an asymptomatic control group. 4D HRM analysis used custom-built software to measure IBP, maximum EGJ diameter, and distensibility index on supine test swallows. 4D HRM metrics were compared with FLIP EGJ metrics. Ninety patients (31 normal motility, 16 ineffective esophageal manometry, 9 absent contractility, 8 conclusive EGJ outflow obstruction [EGJOO], 12 type I achalasia, 14 type II achalasia, 12 type III achalasia, and 34 asymptomatic controls) were included. Phase 2 and 3 IBP was higher in type II and III achalasia compared with controls and normal motility groups ( P < 0.03). Maximum EGJ diameter and EGJ-distensibility index in the conclusive EGJOO and achalasia groups were significantly lower than in controls and normal motility groups ( P < 0.03). 4D HRM identified 37 of 44 (84%) subjects with normal EGJ opening and 29 of 39 (74%) subjects with reduced EGJ opening on FLIP. 4D HRM metrics correlated with expected clinical observations across a spectrum of esophageal motility disorders and defined EGJ obstruction. 4D HRM metrics may have value in defining EGJ obstruction in equivocal cases related to EGJOO or absent peristalsis.

Esophageal Dysmotility in Multiple System Atrophy: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

Background/Objective: Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is often associated with dysphagia and esophageal dysmotility (ED). However, ED in patients with MSA is poorly understood. To assess the relationship between ED, dysphagia, and other clinical findings in such patients and investigate the details of ED in MSA using high-resolution manometry (HRM). Methods: Patients from The University of Tokyo Hospital with MSA who underwent swallowing examinations, esophagography, and HRM between 2017 and 2022 were enrolled. A retrospective chart review of patients' backgrounds, swallowing function, and esophageal motility was performed. ED was evaluated using the Chicago Classification version 4.0. Results: Seventy-four patients with MSA were identified. The median age was 64 years, 48 patients (65%) were male, and the cerebellar variant type was predominant (69%). Abnormal upper esophageal sphincter (UES) resting pressure was observed in 34 patients (46%) and intraesophageal stasis in 65 (88%). High-severity MSA was a risk factor for developing dysphagia, vocal fold movement impairment, and abnormal UES function (p < 0.05). However, no overt clinical risk factors for ED were identified. Various types of ED were detected using HRM, and ineffective esophageal motility was the most frequent disorder. Conclusions: ED is a common occurrence in patients with MSA. Although a high-severity MSA may be a risk factor for developing dysphagia and vocal fold motion impairment, ED can occur regardless of clinical severity. Since ED is rarely detected based on subjective symptoms, careful evaluation of esophageal motility by esophagography or HRM is warranted in patients with MSA.

Diagnostic Utility of High-resolution Esophageal Manometry and Its Correlation with Symptoms.

Primary esophageal motility disorders present with a spectrum of symptoms where manometry plays an important role. We designed this study to evaluate the utility of esophageal manometry among various symptoms. This is a single-center observational study conducted over 5 years in a tertiary referral center. A total of 564 patients who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) using a 16-channel water perfusion system were included in the study. Their clinical profile and manometric findings, as per the Chicago classification version 4.0, were recorded, and the diagnostic utility of HREM with respect to symptoms was studied. Motility disorders were identified in 48.8% of patients, the most common being Achalasia cardia (32.4%). Dysphagia (55.5%) was the most common indication of manometry, followed by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (34.9%), chest pain (6.2%), and symptoms such as belching, globus, and hiccoughs (3.4%). Among those who were re-classified from Chicago classification v3.0 to v4.0, 21.2% had a newer diagnosis. Among the patients with dysphagia, HREM revealed the highest yield of detecting an abnormal esophageal motility test (70.6%); meanwhile, this yield was much lower in those with GERD (21.8%), chest pain (22.8%), and other symptoms (15.7%). The most common finding among those with dysphagia was Achalasia cardia (55.9%), while the study was normal among those with GERD (78.1%), chest pain (77.1%), and other symptoms (84.2%). The sensitivity and specificity of dysphagia for major motility disorders were 65% and 91%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 90%. HREM has high accuracy and a good diagnostic yield among patients with dysphagia, with the most common finding being Achalasia cardia.

Esophageal motor disorders across ages: A retrospective multicentric analysis.

Age-related changes in the gastrointestinal system are common and may be influenced by physiological aging processes. To date, a comprehensive analysis of esophageal motor disorders in patients belonging to various age groups has not been adequately reported. We conducted a retrospective assessment of high-resolution manometry (HRM) studies in a multicenter setting. HRM parameters were evaluated according to the Chicago Classification version 4.0. Epidemiological, demographic, clinical data, and main manometric parameters, were collected at the time of the examination. Age groups were categorized as early adulthood (<35 years), early middle-age (35-49 years), late middle-age (50-64 years), and late adulthood (≥65 years). Overall, 1341 patients (632, 47.0% male) were included with a median age of 55 years. Late adulthood patients reported more frequently dysphagia (35.2%) than early adulthood patients (24.0%, p = 0.035), early middle-age patients (21.0%, p < 0.0001), and late middle-aged patients (22.7%, p < 0.0001). Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction was more prevalent in late adulthood (16.7%) than in early adulthood (6.1%, p = 0.003), and in early middle-age (8.1%, p = 0.001). Patients with normal esophageal motility were significantly younger (52.0 years) than patients with hypercontractile esophagus (61.5 years), type III achalasia (59.6 years), esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (59.4 years), absent contractility (57.2 years), and distal esophageal spasm (57.0 years), in multivariate model (p < 0.0001). The rate of esophageal motor disorders is higher in older patients, in particular esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction and hypercontractile esophagus. Future prospective studies are necessary to confirm our results and to find tailored strategies to improve clinical outcomes.

Age Affects Esophageal Secondary Peristalsis More Than Primary as Assessed by FLIP Panometry and High-resolution Manometry

Age-related changes in esophageal function involve increased rates of dysmotility with advancing age (sometimes described as presbyesophagus).1-4 Specifically, advanced age has been associated with increased lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and decreased peristaltic vigor.1-4 However, the mechanisms underlying these changes, including the relative relationship of primary peristalsis and secondary peristalsis over the lifespan, remain incompletely understood. Current approaches assess primary peristalsis using high-resolution manometry (HRM), with esophageal motility disorders defined using the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), and secondary peristalsis using functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry.5,6 Although HRM and FLIP panometry motility diagnoses are often analogous, they can sometimes differ. For example, abnormal secondary peristalsis can occur when primary peristalsis is normal, which has been associated with reflux and non-obstructive dysphagia.7,8 This study aimed to examine the effect of age on primary peristalsis and secondary peristalsis.

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.

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.

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.