Search

Background and Aim: Absent contractility (AC) and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) are esophageal hypomotility disorders diagnosed using high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Patient characteristics and disease course of these conditions and differential diagnosis between AC and achalasia are yet to be elucidated. Methods: A multicenter study involving 10 high‐volume hospitals was conducted. Starlet HRM findings were compared between AC and achalasia. Patient characteristics including underlying disorders and disease courses were analyzed in AC and IEM. Results: Fifty‐three patients with AC and 92 with IEM were diagnosed, while achalasia was diagnosed in 1784 patients using the Chicago classification v3.0 (CCv3.0). The cut‐off integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) value at 15.7 mmHg showed maximum sensitivity (0.80) and specificity (0.87) for differential diagnosis of AC from type I achalasia. While most ACs were based on systemic disorders such as scleroderma (34%) and neuromuscular diseases (8%), 23% were sporadic cases. The symptom severity of AC was not higher than that of IEM. Regarding the diagnosis of IEM, the more stringent CCv4.0 excluded 14.1% of IEM patients than the CCv3.0, although patient characteristics did not change. In patients with the hypomotile esophagus, concomitance of reflux esophagitis was associated with low distal contractile integral and IRP values. AC and IEM transferred between each other, paralleling with the underlying disease course, although no transition to achalasia was observed. Conclusion: A successful determination of the optimal cut‐off IRP value was achieved using the starlet HRM system to differentiate AC and achalasia. Follow‐up HRM is also useful for differentiating AC from achalasia. Symptom severity may depend on underlying diseases instead of hypomotility severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A new automated diagnostic program for high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) has been developed. This diagnostic program could detect locations of landmarks and could make final diagnoses automatically. However, the accuracy of the program is not known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the automated diagnostic program for HREM. Methods: A total of 445 studies were enrolled. An HREM system (Starlet®) was used, and esophageal motility was diagnosed using the Chicago classification v3.0. First, the locations of the upper esophageal sphincter, transition zone, lower esophageal sphincter, esophago-gastric junction, crural diaphragm and stomach were determined, and each swallow was checked manually. Then, the parameters of the Chicago classification were calculated using an analytic program of the Starlet, and diagnoses were made by three experts. Second, all study raw data were analyzed again by the automated diagnostic program. Diagnoses made by the program were compared to those made by experts to evaluate the accuracy of the diagnoses. Results: The new diagnostic program could identify the landmarks of each swallow, calculate the parameters and make a final diagnosis within 10 s. The diagnoses made by the automated diagnostic program were not matched to those made by experts in only 10 studies, and the overall accuracy of the new automated diagnostic program thus reached 97.8% (435/445). Conclusions: The new automated diagnostic program for HREM is clinically useful in terms of high diagnostic accuracy and time-saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]