Endoscopic Prediction of Achalasia: Putting the CART Before the CARS.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Meng Li, Ofer Z Fass, Dustin A Carlson, Panyavee Pitisuttithum, Eric Goudie, Kristjana Kristinsdottir, Evandros Kaklamanos, Mozziyar Etemadi, Rajesh N Keswani, Ashton Ellison, Vani J A Konda, John E Pandolfino
{"title":"Endoscopic Prediction of Achalasia: Putting the CART Before the CARS.","authors":"Meng Li, Ofer Z Fass, Dustin A Carlson, Panyavee Pitisuttithum, Eric Goudie, Kristjana Kristinsdottir, Evandros Kaklamanos, Mozziyar Etemadi, Rajesh N Keswani, Ashton Ellison, Vani J A Konda, John E Pandolfino","doi":"10.1111/nmo.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Endoscopy can detect features indicative of esophageal dysmotility, but standardized approaches for diagnosing achalasia based on these findings remain limited. Recently, the CARS score was developed to address this gap. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of endoscopy in identifying achalasia, using the STARD framework and current reference standards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients with esophageal symptoms were prospectively enrolled from 2018 to 2023 and evaluated using endoscopy, esophageal manometry, FLIP panometry, and barium esophagram. The CARS score was assigned to endoscopic videos by two raters blinded to other clinical details. The diagnostic accuracy of the CARS score for predicting achalasia, based on Chicago Classification v4.0, was assessed through two interpretation methods: binary cutoffs for the total score and a classification tree model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>316 patients were included: 115 patients with achalasia (36%), 113 with normal motility (36%), and 88 with other manometric findings (28%). A CARS score ≥ 4 demonstrated 72% sensitivity and 99% specificity for achalasia, while a score ≥ 3 had 83% sensitivity and 96% specificity. The optimal classification tree had three levels (resistance score at the top, followed by anatomy and content scores, with hernia presence at the bottom) and had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity 92% for achalasia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endoscopy can accurately identify achalasia with high specificity using the CARS score. While motility testing to confirm an achalasia diagnosis remains essential prior to therapy, a high CARS score may help in the early identification of achalasia, especially in settings where motility testing is not readily available.</p>","PeriodicalId":19123,"journal":{"name":"Neurogastroenterology and Motility","volume":" ","pages":"e70024"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurogastroenterology and Motility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.70024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Endoscopy can detect features indicative of esophageal dysmotility, but standardized approaches for diagnosing achalasia based on these findings remain limited. Recently, the CARS score was developed to address this gap. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of endoscopy in identifying achalasia, using the STARD framework and current reference standards.

Methods: Adult patients with esophageal symptoms were prospectively enrolled from 2018 to 2023 and evaluated using endoscopy, esophageal manometry, FLIP panometry, and barium esophagram. The CARS score was assigned to endoscopic videos by two raters blinded to other clinical details. The diagnostic accuracy of the CARS score for predicting achalasia, based on Chicago Classification v4.0, was assessed through two interpretation methods: binary cutoffs for the total score and a classification tree model.

Results: 316 patients were included: 115 patients with achalasia (36%), 113 with normal motility (36%), and 88 with other manometric findings (28%). A CARS score ≥ 4 demonstrated 72% sensitivity and 99% specificity for achalasia, while a score ≥ 3 had 83% sensitivity and 96% specificity. The optimal classification tree had three levels (resistance score at the top, followed by anatomy and content scores, with hernia presence at the bottom) and had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity 92% for achalasia.

Conclusion: Endoscopy can accurately identify achalasia with high specificity using the CARS score. While motility testing to confirm an achalasia diagnosis remains essential prior to therapy, a high CARS score may help in the early identification of achalasia, especially in settings where motility testing is not readily available.

Achalasia 的内窥镜预测:将 CART 放在 CARS 之前。
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
Neurogastroenterology and Motility
Neurogastroenterology and Motility 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.60%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurogastroenterology & Motility (NMO) is the official Journal of the European Society of Neurogastroenterology & Motility (ESNM) and the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS). It is edited by James Galligan, Albert Bredenoord, and Stephen Vanner. The editorial and peer review process is independent of the societies affiliated to the journal and publisher: Neither the ANMS, the ESNM or the Publisher have editorial decision-making power. Whenever these are relevant to the content being considered or published, the editors, journal management committee and editorial board declare their interests and affiliations.
×
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