Risk Factors Associated with Unsuccessful High-Resolution Manometry.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Dysphagia Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1007/s00455-024-10684-4
Vishesh V Patel, David E Reed, David M Rodrigues
{"title":"Risk Factors Associated with Unsuccessful High-Resolution Manometry.","authors":"Vishesh V Patel, David E Reed, David M Rodrigues","doi":"10.1007/s00455-024-10684-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High-resolution manometry (HRM) is used to evaluate the esophageal motor function. Unfortunately, there are times when testing cannot be performed accurately. Our study aimed to quantify the occurrence of failed HRM and identify the associated risk factors. HRM tests were retrospectively collected between September 2021 and August 2022. HRM reports that could not be interpreted based on standard HRM protocol as per Chicago guidelines were classified as failed tests. Information reviewed included testing indications, patient demographics, previous medical/symptom history, and follow-up testing for failed HRM. We then compared patients with successful vs. unsuccessful HRM based on our pre-specified factors. 152 HRM tests were performed, of which 28 tests (18%) were unsuccessful. Factors associated with failed manometry included a history of nausea/vomiting, dyspepsia, and achalasia. Patients who were unable to tolerate the probe during testing were more likely to have a history of dyspepsia (OR 20.3, p = < 0.001) and/or nausea/vomiting (OR 13.8, p = < 0.001). A history of achalasia was found to have an odds ratio of 13.2 when examining failure because of curling of the manometry catheter (p = 0.012). All seven patients who had repeat HRM with endoscopic placement were successful in obtaining diagnostic information. There are two groups that have risk factors for unsuccessful HRM testing. A history of nausea/vomiting and dyspepsia symptoms were associated with being unable to tolerate the manometry probe. The second group comprises patients with a history of achalasia in whom probe curling is more common. Future research targeting these risk factors may minimize diagnostic and treatment delays.</p>","PeriodicalId":11508,"journal":{"name":"Dysphagia","volume":" ","pages":"1071-1077"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dysphagia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-024-10684-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High-resolution manometry (HRM) is used to evaluate the esophageal motor function. Unfortunately, there are times when testing cannot be performed accurately. Our study aimed to quantify the occurrence of failed HRM and identify the associated risk factors. HRM tests were retrospectively collected between September 2021 and August 2022. HRM reports that could not be interpreted based on standard HRM protocol as per Chicago guidelines were classified as failed tests. Information reviewed included testing indications, patient demographics, previous medical/symptom history, and follow-up testing for failed HRM. We then compared patients with successful vs. unsuccessful HRM based on our pre-specified factors. 152 HRM tests were performed, of which 28 tests (18%) were unsuccessful. Factors associated with failed manometry included a history of nausea/vomiting, dyspepsia, and achalasia. Patients who were unable to tolerate the probe during testing were more likely to have a history of dyspepsia (OR 20.3, p = < 0.001) and/or nausea/vomiting (OR 13.8, p = < 0.001). A history of achalasia was found to have an odds ratio of 13.2 when examining failure because of curling of the manometry catheter (p = 0.012). All seven patients who had repeat HRM with endoscopic placement were successful in obtaining diagnostic information. There are two groups that have risk factors for unsuccessful HRM testing. A history of nausea/vomiting and dyspepsia symptoms were associated with being unable to tolerate the manometry probe. The second group comprises patients with a history of achalasia in whom probe curling is more common. Future research targeting these risk factors may minimize diagnostic and treatment delays.

Abstract Image

与高分辨率测压不成功相关的风险因素
高分辨率测压法(HRM)用于评估食管运动功能。遗憾的是,有时测试无法准确进行。我们的研究旨在量化高分辨率测压失败的发生率,并确定相关的风险因素。我们回顾性地收集了 2021 年 9 月至 2022 年 8 月期间的 HRM 测试结果。无法根据芝加哥指南的标准心率监测方案进行解释的心率监测报告被归类为失败的测试。审查的信息包括测试适应症、患者人口统计学特征、既往病史/症状史以及心率监测失败的后续测试。然后,我们根据预先指定的因素对成功与失败的 HRM 患者进行了比较。共进行了 152 次 HRM 测试,其中 28 次(18%)不成功。与测压失败相关的因素包括恶心/呕吐、消化不良和贲门失弛缓症病史。在测试过程中无法忍受探针的患者更有可能有消化不良病史(OR 20.3,p = 0.2)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dysphagia
Dysphagia 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Dysphagia aims to serve as a voice for the benefit of the patient. The journal is devoted exclusively to swallowing and its disorders. The purpose of the journal is to provide a source of information to the flourishing dysphagia community. Over the past years, the field of dysphagia has grown rapidly, and the community of dysphagia researchers have galvanized with ambition to represent dysphagia patients. In addition to covering a myriad of disciplines in medicine and speech pathology, the following topics are also covered, but are not limited to: bio-engineering, deglutition, esophageal motility, immunology, and neuro-gastroenterology. The journal aims to foster a growing need for further dysphagia investigation, to disseminate knowledge through research, and to stimulate communication among interested professionals. The journal publishes original papers, technical and instrumental notes, letters to the editor, and review articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信