RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have not been able to correlate manometry findings with bolus perception. The aim of this study was to evaluate correlation of different variables, including traditional manometric variables (at diagnostic and extreme thresholds), esophageal shortening, bolus transit, automated impedance manometry (AIM) metrics and mood with bolus passage perception in a large cohort of asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: High resolution manometry (HRM) was performed in healthy individuals from nine centers. Perception was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Anxiety was evaluated using Hospitalized Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). Subgroup analysis was also performed classifying studies into normal, hypotensive, vigorous, and obstructive patterns. KEY RESULTS: One hundred fifteen studies were analyzed (69 using HRM and 46 using high resolution impedance manometry (HRIM); 3.5% swallows in 9.6% of volunteers were perceived. There was no correlation of any of the traditional HRM variables, esophageal shortening, AIM metrics nor bolus transit with perception scores. There was no HRM variable showing difference in perception when comparing normal vs extreme values (percentile 1 or 99). Anxiety but not depression was correlated with perception. Among hypotensive pattern, anxiety was a strong predictor of variance in perception (R2 up to .70). CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES: Bolus perception is less common than abnormal motility among healthy individuals. Neither esophageal motor function nor bolus dynamics evaluated with several techniques seems to explain differences in bolus perception. Different mechanisms seem to be relevant in different manometric patterns. Anxiety is a significant predictor of bolus perception in the context of hypotensive motility.
Asunto(s)
Ansiedad/psicología , Trastornos de la Motilidad Esofágica/diagnóstico , Manometría/métodos , Percepción , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Esófago , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: High-resolution manometry (HRM) is the preferred method for the evaluation of motility disorders. Recently, an update of the diagnostic criteria (Chicago 3.0) has been published. The aim of this study was to compare the performance criteria of Chicago version 2.0 (CC2.0) vs. 3.0 (CC3.0) in a cohort of healthy volunteers and symptomatic patients. METHODS: HRM studies of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals from several centers of Spain and Latin America were analyzed using both CC2.0 and CC3.0. The final diagnosis was grouped into hierarchical categories: obstruction (achalasia and gastro-esophageal junction obstruction), major disorders (distal esophageal spasm, absent peristalsis, and jackhammer), minor disorders (failed frequent peristalsis, weak peristalsis with small or large defects, ineffective esophageal motility, fragmented peristalsis, rapid contractile with normal latency and hypertensive peristalsis) and normal. The results were compared using McNemar's and Kappa tests. RESULTS: HRM was analyzed in 107 healthy volunteers (53.3% female; 18-69 years) and 400 symptomatic patients (58.5% female; 18-90 years). In healthy volunteers, using CC2.0 and CC3.0, obstructive disorders were diagnosed in 7.5% and 5.6%, respectively, major disorders in 1% and 2.8%, respectively, minor disorders in 25.2% and 15%, respectively, and normal in 66.4% and 76.6%, respectively. In symptomatic individuals, using CC2.0 and CC3.0, obstructive disorders were diagnosed in 11% and 11.3%, respectively, major disorders in 14% and 14%, respectively, minor disorders in 33.3% and 24.5%, respectively, and normal in 41.8% and 50.3%, respectively. In both groups of individuals, only an increase in normal and a decrease in minor findings using CC3.0 were statistically significant using McNemar's test. DISCUSSIONS: CC3.0 increases the number of normal studies when compared with CC2.0, essentially at the expense of fewer minor disorders, with no significant differences in major or obstructive disorders. As the relevance of minor disorders is questionable, our data suggest that CC3.0 increases the relevance of abnormal results.