4.5 Editorial Material

Changes in the Treatment of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders Imposed by the New Classification for Esophageal Motility Disorders on High Resolution Manometry (Chicago Classification 4.0)

Journal

ADVANCES IN THERAPY
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 2017-2026

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-021-01714-w

Keywords

Achalasia; Chicago classification; Esophageal manometry; Esophageal motility disorders; High-resolution manometry; Peroral endoscopic myotomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Chicago Classification 4.0 introduces new concepts for the diagnosis of achalasia, potentially reducing unnecessary treatment. Conditions such as esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, and hypercontractile esophagus are now considered clinically significant only in certain conditions, leading to a potential decrease in treatment, especially peroral endoscopic myotomy, solely based on manometric diagnosis.
The Chicago Classification is the most used classification for primary esophageal motility disorders (PEMD). This classification was recently updated to the 4.0 version. This opinion piece focuses on the possible implications for the treatment of PMED determined by the new classification. Chicago Classification 4.0 included two new concepts for the diagnosis of achalasia: (1) type III achalasia diagnosis demands 100% absent peristalsis defined as either failed peristalsis or spasm; (2) inconclusive diagnosis of achalasia was added as a possibility. Both may decrease unnecessary treatment. Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, and hypercontractile esophagus were only considered clinically significant when correlated to supportive testing and relevant clinical symptoms and in the absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease. This may decrease the surge of treatment, especially peroral endoscopic myotomy, based solely on manometric diagnosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available