Variation in esophageal physiology testing in clinical practice: Results from an international survey. Issue 3 (25th September 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sweis, R.; Heinrich, H.; Fox, M.
• Is Part Of: Neurogastroenterology & motility. Volume 30:Issue 3(2018)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2017-09-25
• Subjects: achalasia -- dysphagia -- esophagus -- manometry -- outflow obstruction -- reflux; Gastrointestinal system -- Motility -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal system -- Innervation -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13215
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1350-1925

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Advances in clinical measurement of esophageal motility and function have improved the assessment of swallowing disorders and reflux symptoms. Variation in data acquisition, analysis, and reporting exists and impacts on diagnosis and management. Aims and Methods: This study examined variation in esophageal manometry methodology between institutions to establish the status in current practice. A structured survey was distributed through international NGM societies using an Internet‐based platform. Questions explored infrastructure, technology, analysis, and reporting. Key Results: Responses were received from 91 centers from 29 countries. Eighteen (20%) centers used "conventional" manometry, 75 (82%) high‐resolution manometry, and 53 (58%) HR impedance manometry. All centers documented motility for single water swallows. The Chicago Classification was applied by 65 (71.4%) centers. In contrast, analysis of EGJ morphology varied widely. Adjunctive testing was often applied: multiple rapid swallows (77%), rapid drink challenge (77%), single solid swallows (63%), and a standard test meal (18%). Of 86 (94.5%) units that offered pH impedance (pH‐Z) studies, approximately half (53.5%) performed tests on acid‐suppressant medication in patients with a high pretest probability (eg, erosive esophagitis). Most (75.6%) centers manually reviewed every reflux event. Others examined pH‐Z data only prior to symptoms. To assess symptom association with reflux events, 73.6% centers analyzed each symptom separately, whereas 29.7% centers pooled symptoms. Conclusions and Inferences: There is marked variation in the data acquisition, analysis, and reporting of esophageal manometry studies. Further efforts to improve quality and uniformity in testing and reporting are required. This survey provides information upon which best‐practice guidelines can be developed. Abstract : This study examined variation in esophageal manometry methodology between institutions to establish the status in current practice. There is marked variation in the data acquisition, analysis, and reporting of esophageal manometry studies. Further efforts to improve quality and uniformity in testing and reporting are required.