4.4 Article

High-resolution manometry assessment of the lower esophageal sphincter after-contraction: Normative values and clinical correlation

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13156

关键词

dysphagia; esophageal motility; high-resolution manometry; lower esophageal sphincter

资金

  1. Public Health service [R01 DK079902]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe Chicago Classification v3.0 proposed extending the distal contractile integral (DCI) measurement domain to include the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) to enhance the detection of esophageal hypercontractility. However, normative and clinical data for this approach are unreported. We aimed to describe the application of an extended DCI measurement in asymptomatic controls and patients. MethodsHigh-resolution manometry (HRM) of 65 asymptomatic controls and 72 patients with normal motility were evaluated retrospectively. Dysphagia and chest pain symptoms were assessed using the brief esophageal dysphagia questionnaire (BEDQ); 10 was considered abnormal. HRM studies of 10 supine swallows were evaluated via the standard DCI and an extended DCI measurement domain (DCI+) to include the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) during and after the peristaltic wave. The DCI-increment was calculated as the DCI+ minus DCI. Key ResultsAmong controls, the median (5-95th percentile) DCI+ was 1915 (1359-6921)mm Hg/cm/s and DCI-increment was 534 (126-1488)mm Hg/cm/s. Two patients (3%) had 2 swallows with DCI+ >8000mm Hg/cm/s and seven (10%) patients had at least one swallow with DCI+ >8000mm Hg/cm/s, ie, had potential motility reclassification by application of DCI+. Seven of these nine patients (78%) were evaluated for dysphagia or chest pain, but only 3/9 (33%) had an abnormal BEDQ. Conclusions and InferencesExtension of the DCI measurement domain may aid quantifying hypercontractility that involves the LES. However, adjusting management strategies based on reclassification of patients with otherwise normal motility should be cautiously considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据