Prediction of Esophageal Retention: A Study Comparing High-Resolution Manometry and Functional Luminal Imaging Probe Panometry. (13th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Carlson, Dustin A.; Baumann, Alexandra J.; Prescott, Jacqueline E.; Schauer, Jacob M.; Krause, Amanda; Donnan, Erica N.; Kou, Wenjun; Kahrilas, Peter J.; Pandolfino, John E.
• Is Part Of: American journal of gastroenterology. Volume 116:Number 10(2021)
• Page Start: 2032
• Page End: 2041
• Publication Date: 2021-10-13
• Subjects: Stomach -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Intestines -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal Diseases -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001402
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0002-9270

Abstract

Abstract : INTRODUCTION: High-resolution manometry (HRM) is generally considered the primary method to evaluate esophageal motility; functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry represents a novel method to do so and is completed during sedated endoscopy. This study aimed to compare HRM and FLIP panometry in predicting esophageal retention on timed barium esophagram (TBE). METHODS: A total of 329 adult patients who completed FLIP, HRM, and TBE for primary esophageal motility evaluation were included. An abnormal TBE was defined by a 1-minute column height >5 cm or impaction of a 12.5-mm barium tablet. The integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) on HRM was assessed in the supine and upright patient positions. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening was evaluated with 16-cm FLIP performed during sedated endoscopy through EGJ-distensibility index and maximum EGJ diameter. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curves to identify an abnormal TBE demonstrated AUC (95% confidence interval) of 0.79 (0.75–0.84) for supine IRP, 0.79 (0.76–0.86) for upright IRP, 0.84 (0.79–0.88) for EGJ-distensibility index, and 0.88 (0.85–0.92) for maximum EGJ diameter. Logistic regression to predict abnormal TBE showed odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.8 (0.84–3.7) for consistent IRP elevation and 39.7 (16.4–96.2) for reduced EGJ opening on FLIP panometry. Of 40 patients with HRM-FLIP panometry discordance, HRM-IRP was consistent with TBE in 23% while FLIP panometry was consistent with TBE in 78%. DISCUSSION: FLIP panometry provided superior detection of esophageal retention over IRP on HRM. However, application of a complementary evaluation involving FLIP panometry, HRM, and TBE may be necessary to accurately diagnose esophageal motility disorders.