Background The most recent Chicago Classification expanded the criteria for diagnosis of jackhammer esophagus (JHE) to include the distal contractile integral (DCI) of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). The clinical impact of the manometric inclusion of LES hypercontractility remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the clinical features and long‐term outcomes of measured LES‐dependent (LD‐JHE) and LES‐independent (LI‐JHE) jackhammer esophagus. Methods Patients meeting diagnostic criteria for JHE were identified at two academic medical centers. High‐resolution esophageal manometry data were re‐analyzed with inclusion and exclusion of the LES DCI. LD‐JHE was defined by falling outside JHE diagnostic criteria with exclusion of the LES. A telephone survey was conducted for follow‐up utilizing the impact dysphagia (IDQ‐10) questionnaire. Key Results Eighty‐one patients met study inclusion criteria, with 12 (14.8%) classified as LD‐JHE. LD‐JHE patients had a significantly lower mean DCI and fewer swallows with DCI >8000 mm Hg‐s‐cm. Basal LES pressure was higher in patients with dysphagia to solids than those with dysphagia to solids and liquids. Clinical and manometric parameters were otherwise similar between groups. Sixty‐six patients had clinical or phone follow‐up at a median of 46.6 months. Forty‐one patients (62.1%) received therapies directed at JHE. There was no difference in symptom improvement for treated vs untreated patients or for JHE subtype. Conclusions and Inferences Our findings suggest that LD‐JHE and LI‐JHE are clinically indistinguishable and thus support existing diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, our long‐term follow‐up data suggest that JHE, irrespective of LES involvement, may improve without treatment. Further study is needed to clarify which patients merit therapeutic intervention.
The Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CC v 3.0) defines hypercontractile peristalsis as Jackhammer esophagus (JE); Nutcracker esophagus (NE) is no longer recognized. Data regarding patient characteristics and treatment response for JE versus NE are limited. We aimed to compare demographic characteristics, high resolution manometry (HRM) features, clinical presentation, management strategies, and treatment outcomes in patients with JE versus NE. We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients diagnosed with NE (CC v 2.0) or JE (CC v 3.0) by HRM from January 2012 to August 2015. Demographics, symptoms, treatments, and response to therapy (none or partial/complete) were ascertained by chart review, for statistical comparisons. In 45 patients with JE and 29 with NE, there was no significant difference in rate of dysphagia (73% and 59%) or chest pain (44% and 59%). Treatment data were available in 29 JE (smooth muscle relaxants in 4, pain modulators in 3, botulinum toxin injection (BTX) in 10, endoscopic dilation in 5, multimodal treatment in 7), and 20 NE patients (smooth muscle relaxants in 2, pain modulators in 2, (BTX) in 6, endoscopic dilation in 3, multimodal treatment in 7). Follow-up data on 26/29 JE and 20/20 NE patients showed similar treatment response (96.4% vs. 82.1%, p= 0.08) after mean follow-up of 11.2 and 11 months, respectively. There were no major differences for JE versus NE in demographics, symptoms, or type of and response to therapy. Larger prospective, controlled trials are needed to clarify the clinical significance and response to treatment in JE and NE.
Radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia is recommended in recent American College of Gastroenterology guidelines, with endoscopic surveillance considered a reasonable alternative. Few studies have directly compared outcomes of radiofrequency ablation to surveillance and those that have are limited by short duration of follow-up. This study aims to compare the long-term effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation versus endoscopic surveillance in a large, longitudinal cohort of patients with Barrett's esophagus, and low-grade dysplasia.We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with confirmed low-grade dysplasia at a single academic medical center from 1991 to 2014. Patients progressing to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma within one year of index LGD endoscopy were defined as missed dysplasia and excluded. Risk factors for progression were assessed via Cox proportional hazards model. Comparison of progression risk was conducted using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Subset analyses were conducted to examine the effect of reintroducing early progressors and excluding patients diagnosed prior to the advent of ablative therapy. Of 173 total patients, 79 (45.7%) underwent radiofrequency ablation while 94 (54.3%) were untreated, with median follow up of 90 months. Seven (8.9%) patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma despite ablation, compared with 14 (14.9%) undergoing surveillance (P = 0.44). This effect was preserved when patients diagnosed prior to the introduction of radiofrequency ablation were excluded (8.9% vs 13%, P = 0.68). Reintroduction of patients progressing within the first year of follow-up resulted in a trend toward significance for ablation versus surveillance (11.1% vs 23.8%, P = 0.053).In conclusion, progression to high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma was not significantly reduced in the radiofrequency ablation cohort when compared to surveillance. Despite recent studies suggesting the superiority of radiofrequency ablation in reducing progression, diligent endoscopic surveillance may provide similar long-term outcomes.
BackgroundCirrhosis is often accompanied by an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) due to a decrease in pro-coagulant factors. An elevated INR in cirrhosis is often interpreted as an increased risk of bleeding. There are a paucity of data in the literature on the use of INR to predict risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with cirrhosis. The aims of the study were to determine if there is a correlation between INR and GIB following ERCP in patients with cirrhosis, and to determine if there is a difference in frequency of post-ERCP complications in patients with and without cirrhosis.MethodsA retrospective review of all ERCP procedures was performed at a tertiary care institution between 2012 and 2015. We identified ERCPs performed in patients with cirrhosis and compared them to a randomly selected group without liver cirrhosis. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-square and ANOVA tests. A multivariable logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations was used to examine the association between INR and GIB.ResultsThere were a total of 1,610 ERCPs performed from 2012 to 2015 with 129 performed in 56 patients with cirrhosis compared with 392 ERCPs performed in 310 patients without cirrhosis. There was no difference in the frequency of GIB following ERCP in both groups (P = 0.117). However, there was a difference in overall complications between both groups (P = 0.007), but no difference observed amongst Child-Turcotte-Pugh classes (P = NS). In a multivariable analysis, sphincterotomy during ERCP (odds ratio (OR) = 3.22; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05 - 9.94; P = 0.042) and cirrhosis (OR = 3.58; 95% CI: 1.22 - 10.47; P = 0.02) were significant for predicting GIB. Anti-coagulation (OR = 2.90; 95% CI: 0.82 - 10.23; P = 0.097) and INR were not significant in the multivariable model (OR = 2.09; 95% CI: 0.85 - 5.12; P = 0.10).ConclusionThere was a statistical difference in overall complications between patients with and without cirrhosis but no difference was observed amongst Child-Turcotte-Pugh classes. Overall, INR was not a significant factor in predicting risk of bleeding in patients after ERCP.
SDR was higher in small volume SDP. There was no difference in rate of inadequate exams between the two groups. A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in patients with the small volume SDP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.