4.6 Article

Basal and residual lower esophageal pressures increase in old age in classic achalasia, but not vigorous achalasia

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 1452-1455

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06298.x

Keywords

achalasia; functional gastrointestinal diseases; dysphagia; motility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aim: The relationship between age and esophageal motility parameters (i.e. basal and residual pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter [LES]) remains to be established in achalasia patients, possibly because most previous studies did not distinguish between classic and vigorous achalasia patients. We investigated the relationship between age and esophageal motility parameters in both classic and vigorous achalasia patients. Methods: A retrospective review of esophageal manometry data in a single center was undertaken. Basal and residual pressure for LES was analyzed. A total of 103 achalasia patients were enrolled, comprising 84 classic and 19 vigorous types. They were subdivided into three different age groups as follows: 21-40 years old (group A), 41-60 years old (group B), and over 60 years old (group C). Results: In classic achalasia patients (M : F = 27:57, mean age = 44 +/- 15 years old) the older age group showed a significantly higher basal LES pressure (49.62 +/- 19.63 mmHg) than the younger age group (P < 0.0001). Moreover, the older age group also showed significantly high residual LES pressure (20.46 +/- 8.61 mmHg) than the younger age group (P = 0.0006). In contrast, in vigorous achalasia patients (M : F = 12:7, mean age: 47 +/- 15 years old) there were no difference between age and motility indices (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: In classic achalasia patients there appears to be a correlation between age and esophageal motility indices, especially basal and residual LES pressure. Such correlations do not appear to exist for vigorous achalasia patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available