Assessment of Esophageal Emptying in Patients with Dysphagia: Differences Between High-Resolution Impedance Manometry and Timed Barium Esophagram.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY

Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Pub Date : 2025-04-01 DOI:10.51821/88.1.13772

D L Cohen, J Ghantus, R Tome, B Hijazi, F Abu Baker, H Shirin, D Carter, F Shibli, T Khoury, A Mari

{"title":"Assessment of Esophageal Emptying in Patients with Dysphagia: Differences Between High-Resolution Impedance Manometry and Timed Barium Esophagram.","authors":"D L Cohen, J Ghantus, R Tome, B Hijazi, F Abu Baker, H Shirin, D Carter, F Shibli, T Khoury, A Mari","doi":"10.51821/88.1.13772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/aims: Assessment of esophageal emptying is important in the evaluation of patients with dysphagia. As several modalities can evaluate this, we aimed to compare two tests frequently used for assessing esophageal emptying-highresolution impedance manometry (HRiM) and timed barium esophagram (TBE).Methods: A retrospective study compared the results of HRiM and TBE in patients with dysphagia between 2018 and 2022. Abnormal esophageal clearance was defined as ≥30% swallows with incomplete bolus clearance on HRiM and as residual barium ≥2 cm at 5 minutes on TBE.Results: 77 patients were included in the study (mean age 51.6; 69% female). The most common HRiM diagnoses were normal motility (37.7%), ineffective esophageal motility (28.6%), and achalasia (19.5%). Effective esophageal clearance was noted on HRiM in only 44 subjects (57.1%), while it was seen on TBE in 57 subjects (74.0%)(P=0.027). There was agreement between the studies in 58 subjects (75.3%). Agreement was significantly affected by the HRiM diagnosis with the highest rate (86.7%) among achalasia patients (P=0.032). The only other factor correlated to agreement between the studies was a lack of alcohol use (P=0.048).Conclusions: According to the parameters used in this study, TBE is more likely to reveal esophageal emptying than HRiM in patients with dysphagia. While there is fair agreement between the results of the two studies, results are especially concordant in achalasia patients suggesting that either study may be useful in evaluating esophageal emptying in that population.","PeriodicalId":7322,"journal":{"name":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","volume":"88 2","pages":"89-95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51821/88.1.13772","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aims: Assessment of esophageal emptying is important in the evaluation of patients with dysphagia. As several modalities can evaluate this, we aimed to compare two tests frequently used for assessing esophageal emptying-highresolution impedance manometry (HRiM) and timed barium esophagram (TBE).

Methods: A retrospective study compared the results of HRiM and TBE in patients with dysphagia between 2018 and 2022. Abnormal esophageal clearance was defined as ≥30% swallows with incomplete bolus clearance on HRiM and as residual barium ≥2 cm at 5 minutes on TBE.

Results: 77 patients were included in the study (mean age 51.6; 69% female). The most common HRiM diagnoses were normal motility (37.7%), ineffective esophageal motility (28.6%), and achalasia (19.5%). Effective esophageal clearance was noted on HRiM in only 44 subjects (57.1%), while it was seen on TBE in 57 subjects (74.0%)(P=0.027). There was agreement between the studies in 58 subjects (75.3%). Agreement was significantly affected by the HRiM diagnosis with the highest rate (86.7%) among achalasia patients (P=0.032). The only other factor correlated to agreement between the studies was a lack of alcohol use (P=0.048).

Conclusions: According to the parameters used in this study, TBE is more likely to reveal esophageal emptying than HRiM in patients with dysphagia. While there is fair agreement between the results of the two studies, results are especially concordant in achalasia patients suggesting that either study may be useful in evaluating esophageal emptying in that population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

吞咽困难患者食管排空的评估：高分辨率阻抗测压法与定时食管钡餐造影的差异。

背景/目的：食管排空的评估是评估吞咽困难患者的重要指标。由于有几种方法可以评估这一点，我们的目的是比较两种经常用于评估食管排空的测试——高分辨率阻抗测压法（hrm）和定时食管钡图（TBE）。方法：回顾性研究比较2018 - 2022年吞咽困难患者的hrm和TBE结果。食管异常清除率定义为：吞咽≥30%且hrm丸清不完全，TBE 5分钟时残余钡≥2 cm。结果：77例患者纳入研究，平均年龄51.6岁；69%的女性)。最常见的hrm诊断为运动正常（37.7%），食管运动无效（28.6%）和失弛缓症（19.5%）。hrm有效的食管清除率仅为44例（57.1%），TBE有效清除率为57例（74.0%）（P=0.027）。58名受试者（75.3%）的研究结果一致。hrm诊断对一致性有显著影响，其中贲门失弛缓症患者的一致性率最高（86.7%）（P=0.032）。与两项研究之间的一致性相关的唯一其他因素是缺乏酒精使用（P=0.048）。结论：根据本研究使用的参数，TBE比hrm更容易显示吞咽困难患者的食管排空。虽然两项研究的结果相当一致，但贲门失弛缓症患者的结果尤其一致，这表明两项研究都可能有助于评估该人群的食管排空。

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

Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Medicine-Gastroenterology

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

20.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica principally publishes peer-reviewed original manuscripts, reviews, letters to editors, book reviews and guidelines in the field of clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, including digestive oncology, digestive pathology, as well as nutrition. Pure animal or in vitro work will not be considered for publication in the Journal. Translational research papers (including sections of animal or in vitro work) are considered by the Journal if they have a clear relationship to or relevance for clinical hepato-gastroenterology (screening, disease mechanisms and/or new therapies). Case reports and clinical images will be accepted if they represent an important contribution to the description, the pathogenesis or the treatment of a specific gastroenterology or liver problem. The language of the Journal is English. Papers from any country will be considered for publication. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal should not have been published previously (in English or any other language), nor should they be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Unsolicited papers are peer-reviewed before it is decided whether they should be accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Manuscripts that do not meet the presentation criteria (as indicated below) will be returned to the authors. Papers that go too far beyond the scope of the journal will be also returned to the authors by the editorial board generally within 2 weeks. The Journal reserves the right to edit the language of papers accepted for publication for clarity and correctness, and to make formal changes to ensure compliance with AGEB’s style. Authors have the opportunity to review such changes in the proofs.