Management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires repeated endoscopic mucosal sampling to assess disease activity. A less invasive and expensive means of monitoring of EoE is required. The ...objective of this study was to assess the accuracy, safety, and tolerability of the cytosponge compared to endoscopy and biopsy for histologic assessment of EoE.
In this prospective two-center cross-sectional study, patients with known EoE underwent cytosponge sampling followed by endoscopy and biopsy. Sample adequacy and eosinophil counts (eos/HPF) were determined for both cytosponge and endoscopic samples. The cytosponge was assessed for diagnostic accuracy, safety, and patient preference as compared to endoscopy.
Six patients (7%) failed to swallow the sponge. One hundred and five procedures were successfully performed in 80 patients (66% male, 100% white, 19% stricture). The cytosponge sample was adequate in 102 and the biopsy in 104; 101 procedures had adequate samples by both techniques. Fifty-seven biopsies were graded as active EoE with ≥15 eos/HPF as the gold standard. Eosinophil counts highly correlated between the biopsy and cytosponge (r=0.78, P<0.0001). Using a cutoff of ≤15 eos/HPF for inactive disease, the sensitivity and specificity of the cytosponge was 75% and 86%, respectively. Six patients had active EoE on cytosponge not found on biopsy. For biopsies with inactive EoE, the cytosponge identified 38/44. No complications occurred, and cytosponge endoscopic abrasion scores were low (0.34/4). Patients preferred cytosponge to endoscopy with higher rating scores (7.27 vs. 6.11, P=0.002).
Compared to endoscopy with biopsy, cytosponge provided a minimally invasive, safe, well tolerated, and accurate method to assess EoE histologic activity. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT01585103).
Despite effective dietary treatments, physicians prefer medications for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).
We conducted a web-based survey of providers to assess the perceived effectiveness, practice ...patterns, and barriers to EoE dietary therapy.
Providers view diet as the least effective treatment. The greatest barrier was the belief that patients are disinterested and unlikely to adhere (58%). With less access to dietitians (56%), nonacademic providers often manage diets without dietitian guidance (41%).
Given high patient acceptance for diets and multiple treatment options for EoE, clinicians need evidence-based knowledge on EoE diets, access to dietitians, and awareness of patient preferences.
Uncontrolled results suggest that diaphragmatic breathing (DB) is effective in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) but the mechanism of action and rigor of proof is lacking. This study aimed to ...determine the effects of DB on reflux, lower esophageal sphincter (LES), and gastric pressures in patients with upright GERD and controls.
Adult patients with pH proven upright GERD were studied. During a high-resolution impedance manometry, study patients received a standardized pH neutral refluxogenic meal followed by LES challenge maneuvers (Valsalva and abdominal hollowing) while randomized to DB or sham. After that, patients underwent 48 hours of pH-impedance monitoring, with 50% randomization to postprandial DB during the second day.
On examining 23 patients and 10 controls, postprandial gastric pressure was found to be significantly higher in patients compared with that in controls (12 vs 7 mm Hg, P = 0.018). Valsalva maneuver produced reflux in 65.2% of patients compared with 44.4% of controls (P = 0.035). LES increased during the inspiratory portion of DB (42.2 vs 23.1 mm Hg, P < 0.001) in patients and healthy persons. Postprandial DB reduced the number of postprandial reflux events in patients (0.36 vs 2.60, P < 0.001) and healthy subjects (0.00 vs 1.75, P < 0.001) compared with observation. During 48-hour ambulatory study, DB reduced the reflux episodes on day 2 compared with observation on day 1 in both the patient and control groups (P = 0.049). In patients, comparing DB with sham, total acid exposure on day 2 was not different (10.2 ± 7.9 vs 9.4 ± 6.2, P = 0.804). In patients randomized to DB, esophageal acid exposure in a 2-hour window after the standardized meal on day 1 vs day 2 reduced from 11.8% ±6.4 to 5.2% ± 5.1, P = 0.015.
In patients with upright GERD, DB reduces the number of postprandial reflux events pressure by increasing the difference between LES and gastric pressure. These data further encourage studying DB as therapy for GERD.
Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty‐two diverse international experts ...separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two‐years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.
Key updates in the CCv4.0 include a protocol inclusive of varying positions and provocative tests, recognitions of conclusive and inconclusive patterns, requirement of clinically relevant symptoms for a conclusive diagnosis of EGJOO, distal esophageal spasm or hypercontractile esophagus, and increasingly stringent criteria for EGJOO and IEM.The classification using CCv4.0 is based on the primary position (either supine or upright), while assessment of swallows in the secondary position and with provocation provides supportive data, particularly for inconclusive settings.
Listen to the podcast for this article.
Abstract
Background
Advances in ambulatory esophageal reflux monitoring that incorporated impedance electrodes to pH catheters have resulted in better characterization of retrograde bolus flow in the ...esophagus. With pH‐impedance monitoring, in addition to acid reflux episodes identified by pH drops below 4.0, weakly acid reflux (WAR, pH 4–7) and nonacid reflux (NAR, pH >7.0) are also recognized, although both may be included under the umbrella term NAR. However, despite identification of ambulatory pH‐impedance monitoring, data on clinical relevance and prognostic value of NAR are limited. The Lyon Consensus, an international expert review that defines conclusive metrics for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), identifies NAR as “supportive” but not conclusive for GERD.
Purpose
This review provides perspectives on whether NAR fulfills three criteria for clinical relevance: whether NAR sufficiently explains pathogenesis of symptoms, whether it is associated with meaningful manifestations of GERD, and whether it can predict treatment efficacy.
The development of intraluminal esophageal impedance monitoring has improved our ability to detect and measure gastroesophageal reflux without dependence on acid content. This ability to detect ...previously unrecognized weak or nonacid reflux episodes has had important clinical implications in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In addition, with the ability to assess bolus transit within the esophageal lumen, impedance monitoring has enhanced the recognition and characterization of esophageal motility disorders in patients with nonobstructive dysphagia. The assessment of the intraluminal movement of gas and liquid has also been proven to be of diagnostic value in conditions such as rumination syndrome and excessive belching. Further, alternative applications of impedance monitoring, such as the measurement of mucosal impedance, have provided novel insights into assessing esophageal mucosal integrity changes as a consequence of inflammatory change. Future applications for esophageal impedance monitoring also hold promise in esophageal conditions other than GERD. However, despite all of the clinical benefits afforded by esophageal impedance monitoring, important clinical and technical shortcomings limit its diagnostic value and must be considered when interpreting study results. Overinterpretation of studies or application of impedance monitoring in patients can have deleterious clinical implications. This review will highlight the clinical benefits and limitations of esophageal impedance monitoring and provide clinical pearls and pitfalls associated with this technology.
PDF
