Browsing by Author "Zerbib, Frank"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Breaks in peristaltic integrity predict abnormal esophageal bolus clearance better than contraction vigor or residual pressure at the esophagogastric junction(2021) Rogers, Benjamin D.; Cisternas, Daniel; Rengarajan, Arvind; Marin, Ingrid; Abrahao Jr, Luiz; Hani,Albis; Lequizamo, Ana M.; Remes-Troche, José M.; Perez de la Serna, Julio; Ruiz de Leon, Antonio; Zerbib, Frank; Serra, Jordi; Gyawali, C. PrakashBackground: High- resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) evaluates esophagealperistalsis and bolus transit. We used esophageal impedance integral (EII), the ratio between bolus presence before and after an expected peristaltic wave, to evaluate predictors of bolus transit. Methods: From HRIM studies performed on 61 healthy volunteers (median age 27 years, 48%F), standard metrics were extracted from each of 10 supine water swallows: distal contractile integral (DCI, mmHg cm s), integrated relaxation pressure(IRP, mmHg), and breaks in peristaltic integrity (cm, using 20 mmHg isobaric contour). Pressure and impedance coordinates for each swallow were exported into a dedi -cated, python- based program for EII calculation (EII ratio ≥ 0.3 = abnormal bolus clear -ance). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess predictors of abnormal bolus clearance. Key Results: Of 591 swallows, 80.9% were intact, 10.5% were weak, and 8.6% failed. Visual analysis overestimated abnormal bolus clearance compared to EII ratio (p ≤ 0.01). Bolus clearance was complete (median EII ratio 0.0, IQR 0– 0.12) in 82.0% of intact swallows in contrast to 53.3% of weak swallows (EII ratio 0.29, IQR 0.0– 0.57), and 19.6% of failed swallows (EII ratio 0.5, IQR 0.34– 0.73, p < 0.001). EII correlated best with break length (ρ = 0.52, p < 0.001), compared to IRP (ρ: −0.17) or DCI (ρ: −0.42). On ROC analysis, breaks predicted abnormal bolus transit better than DCI or IRP (AUC 0.79 vs. 0.25 vs. 0.44, p ≤ 0.03 for each). On logistic regression, breaks remained independently predictive of abnormal bolus transit (p < 0.001). Conclusions & Inferences: Breaks in peristaltic integrity predict abnormal bolus clear-ance better than DCI or IRP in healthy asymptomatic subjects.Item Chicago Classification update (V4.0): Technical review on diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and absent contractility(2021) Gyawali, C. Prakash; Zerbib, Frank; Bhatia, Shobna; Cisternas, Daniel; Coss-Adame, Enrique; Lazarescu, Adriana; Pohl, Daniel; Yadlapati, Rena; Penagini, Roberto; Pandolfino, JohnEsophageal hypomotility disorders manifest with abnormal esophageal body contraction vigor, breaks in peristaltic integrity, or failure of peristalsis in the context of normal lower esophageal sphincter relaxation on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). The Chicago Classification version 4.0 recognizes two hypomotility disorders, ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and absent contractility, while fragmented peristalsis has been incorporated into the IEM definition. Updated criteria for ineffective swallows consist of weak esophageal body contraction vigor measured using distal contractile integral (DCI, 100–450 mmHg·cm·s), transition zone defects >5 cm measured using a 20 mmHg isobaric contour, or failure of peristalsis (DCI < 100 mmHg·cm·s). More than 70% ineffective swallows and/or ≥50% failed swallows are required for a conclusive diagnosis of IEM. When the diagnosis is inconclusive (50%–70% ineffective swallows), supplementary evidence from multiple rapid swallows (absence of contraction reserve), barium radiography (abnormal bolus clearance), or HRM with impedance (abnormal bolus clearance) could support a diagnosis of IEM. Absent contractility requires 100% failed peristalsis, consistent with previous versions of the classification. Consideration needs to be given for the possibility of achalasia in absent contractility with dysphagia despite normal IRP, and alternate complementary tests (including timed upright barium esophagram and functional lumen imaging probe) are recommended to confirm or refute the presence of achalasia. Future research to quantify esophageal bolus retention on stationary HRM with impedance and to understand contraction vigor thresholds that predict bolus clearance will provide further refinement to diagnostic criteria for esophageal hypomotility disorders in future iterations of the Chicago Classification.Item Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0(2021) Yadlapati, Rena; Kahrilas, Peter J.; Fox, Mark R.; Bredenoord, Albert J.; Gyawali, C. Prakash; Roman, Sabine; Babaei, Arash; Mittal, Ravinder K.; Rommel, Nathalie; Savarino, Edoardo; Sifrim, Daniel; Smout, André; Vaezi, Michael F.; Zerbib, Frank; Akiyama, Junichi; Bhatia, Shobna; Bor, Serhat; Carlson, Dustin A.; Chen, Joan W.; Cisternas, Daniel; Cock, Charles; Coss-Adame, Enrique; Bortoli, Nicola de; Defilippi, Claudia; Fass, Ronnie; Ghoshal, Uday C.; Gonlachanvit, Sutep; Hani, Albis; Hebbard, Geoffrey S.; Jung, Kee Wook; Katz, Philip; Katzka, David A.; Khan, Abraham; Kohn, Geoffrey Paul; Lazarescu, Adriana; Lengliner, Johannes; Mittal, Sumeet K.; Omari, Taher; Park, Moo I.; Penagini, Roberto; Pohl, Daniel; Richter, Joel E.; Serra, Jordi; Sweis, Rami; Tack, Jan; Tatum, Roger P.; Tutuian, Radu; Vela, Marcelo F.; Wong, Reuben K.; Wu, Justin C.; Xiao, Yinglian; Pandolfino, John E.Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esopha-geal 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 diag-nostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ met-rics. 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 pat-terns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJItem Ineffective esophageal motility and bolus clearance. A study with combined high-resolution manometry and impedance in asymptomatic controls and patients(2020) Zerbib, Frank; Marin, Ingrid; Cisternas, Daniel; Abrahao Jr, Luiz; Hani, Albis; Leguizamo, Ana M.; Remes-Troche, José M.; Perez de la Serna, Julio; Ruiz de Leon, Antonio; Serra, JordiBackground The definition and relevance of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) remains debated. Our aim was to determine motility patterns and symptoms associated with IEM defined as impaired bolus clearance. Methods To define altered bolus clearance, normal range of swallows with complete bolus transit (CBT) on high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) was determined in 44 asymptomatic controls. The results were then applied to a cohort of 81 patients with esophageal symptoms to determine the motility patterns which best predicted altered bolus clearance. Subsequently, in a cohort of 281 consecutive patients the identified motility patterns were compared with patients’ customary symptoms. Key Results In asymptomatic controls, the normal range of swallows with CBT was 50%-100%. In patients, altered bolus transit (<50% CBT) was only associated with 30% or more failed contractions (P < .001). Neither weak peristalsis nor absence of contraction reserve (CR) was associated with altered bolus clearance. The patterns which best predicted altered bolus clearance were failed contractions ≥30% (specificity 88.2% and sensitivity of 84.6%), and ≥70% ineffective (failed + weak) contractions (sensitivity 84.6% and specificity 80.9%). No motility pattern was correlated to symptom scores. Conclusions and Inferences Based on bolus clearance assessed by HRIM, ≥30% failed contractions and ≥70% ineffective contractions have the best sensitivity and specificity to predict altered bolus clearance. Weak contractions and absence of CR are not relevant with respect to bolus clearance.Publication Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0(2023) Gyawali, Prakash; Yadlapati, Rena; Fass, Ronnie; Katzka, David; Pandolfino, John; Savarino, Edoardo; Sifrim, Daniel; Spechler, Stuart; Zerbib, Frank; Fox, Mark; Bhatia, Shobna; De Bortoli, Nicola; Kyung Cho, Yu; Cisternas, Daniel; Chen, Chien-Lin; Cock, Charles; Hani, Albis; Remes, Jose; Xiao, Yinglian; Vaezi, Michael; Roman, SabineThe Lyon Consensus provides conclusive criteria for and against the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adjunctive metrics that consolidate or refute GERD diagnosis when primary criteria are borderline or inconclusive. An international core and working group was assembled to evaluate research since publication of the original Lyon Consensus, and to vote on statements collaboratively developed to update criteria. The Lyon Consensus 2.0 provides a modern definition of actionable GERD, where evidence from oesophageal testing supports revising, escalating or personalising GERD management for the symptomatic patient. Symptoms that have a high versus low likelihood of relationship to reflux episodes are described. Unproven versus proven GERD define diagnostic strategies and testing options. Patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD) are studied using prolonged wireless pH monitoring or catheter-based pH or pH-monitoring off antisecretory medication, while patients with conclusive GERD evidence (proven GERD) and persisting symptoms are evaluated using pH-impedance monitoring while on optimised antisecretory therapy. The major changes from the original Lyon Consensus criteria include establishment of Los Angeles grade B oesophagitis as conclusive GERD evidence, description of metrics and thresholds to be used with prolonged wireless pH monitoring, and inclusion of parameters useful in diagnosis of refractory GERD when testing is performed on antisecretory therapy in proven GERD. Criteria that have not performed well in the diagnosis of actionable GERD have been retired. Personalisation of investigation and management to each patient's unique presentation will optimise GERD diagnosis and management.