Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 63, Issue 12, pp 3178–3186 | Cite as

Utility of Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry in Clinical Practice: First, Do HRM

  • Ishita Dhawan
  • Brendon O’Connell
  • Amit Patel
  • Ron Schey
  • Henry P. Parkman
  • Frank FriedenbergEmail author
Mentored Reviews

Abstract

Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) has advanced the understanding of esophageal motor function and the ability to diagnose and manage disorders of esophageal motility. In this review, we describe the indications for and the technical performance of HRM. The Chicago classification of esophageal motor function, now in its third iteration, streamlines and standardizes the nomenclature and basic interpretation of HRM data depicted as Clouse topographic plots. In clinical practice, HRM is an important diagnostic test for patients with dysphagia as well as patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), particularly in those patients with a suboptimal symptomatic response to antisecretory therapy. HRM can support diagnoses such as achalasia, as well as provide evidence for behavioral disorders such as rumination syndrome or supragastric belching with the assistance of postprandial HRM with impedance. Further, the GERD classification of motor function introduces a three-part hierarchical evaluation of esophageal motor function in GERD, highlighting the value of assessment of esophageal contractile reserve through provocative maneuvers during HRM such as multiple rapid swallows.

Keywords

Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) Antireflux surgery (ARS) Chicago classification 

Abbreviations

CD

Crural diaphragm

CDP

Contractile deceleration point

DCI

Distal contractile integral

DES

Distal esophageal spasm

DL

Distal latency

EGJ

Esophagogastric junction

EGJOO

EGJ outflow obstruction

EPT

Esophageal pressure topography

GERD

Gastroesophageal reflux disease

HRM

High-resolution esophageal manometry

HRiM

High-resolution esophageal manometry with impedance

IEM

Ineffective esophageal motility

IRP

Integrated relaxation pressure

LES

Lower esophageal sphincter

RIP

Respiratory inversion point

UES

Upper esophageal sphincter

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Rahul Kataria, a fellow in the section of Gastroenterology for contributing the manometry imaging.

Author’s contribution

Ishita Dhawan, MD, is a resident in the Department of Internal Medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital, and prepared and edited the manuscript. Brendon O’Connell, MD, is a fellow in the Division of Gastroenterology at Duke University School of Medicine and the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and prepared and edited the manuscript. Amit Patel, MD, is an assistant professor of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Duke University School of Medicine and the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and prepared and edited the manuscript. Ron Schey, MD, is a professor in the Section of Gastroenterology and provided critical revisions of the manuscript. Henry Parkman, MD, is a professor in the Section of Gastroenterology and provided critical revisions of the manuscript. Frank Friedenberg, MD MS, is Chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and prepared and edited the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Patel A, Posner S, Gyawali CP. Esophageal high-resolution manometry in gastroesophageal reflux disease. JAMA. 2018.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gyawali CP, de Bortoli N, Clarke J, et al. Indications and interpretation of esophageal function testing. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yadlapati R. High resolution manometry vs conventional line tracing for esophageal motility disorders. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2017;13:176–178.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Celebi A. High-resolution manometry versus conventional manometry in diagnosis of patients with nonobstructive dysphagia. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2016;27:566–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yadlapati R. High-resolution esophageal manometry: interpretation in clinical practice. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2017;33:301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindberg G. High-resolution manometry changes our views of gastrointestinal motility. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25:780–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mion F, Garros A, Brochard C, et al. 3D High-definition anorectal manometry: values obtained in asymptomatic volunteers, fecal incontinence and chronic constipation. Results of a prospective multicenter study (NOMAD). Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:e13049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raja S, Okeke FC, Stein EM, et al. Three-dimensional anorectal manometry enhances diagnostic gain by detecting sphincter defects and puborectalis pressure. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62:3536–3541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee TH, Bharucha AE. How to perform and interpret a high-resolution anorectal manometry test. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;22:46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bredenoord AJ, Hebbard GS. Technical aspects of clinical high-resolution manometry studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roman S, Huot L, Zerbib F, et al. High-resolution manometry improves the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders in patients with dysphagia: a randomized multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:372–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soudagar AS, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Learners favour high resolution oesophageal manometry with better diagnostic accuracy over conventional line tracings. Gut. 2012;61:798–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carlson DA, Ravi K, Kahrilas PJ, et al. Diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders: esophageal pressure topography vs. conventional line tracing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:967–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carlson DA, Pandolfino JE. High-resolution manometry in clinical practice. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2015;11:374–384.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singendonk MMJ, Rosen R, Oors J, et al. Intra- and interrater reliability of the Chicago classification of achalasia subtypes in pediatric high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) recordings. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:e13113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel A, Ding A, Mirza F, Gyawali CP. Optimizing the high-resolution manometry (HRM) study protocol. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27:300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de León Ruiz, San Juan A, de Los Ciriza, et al. Practical aspects of high resolution esophageal manometry. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2017;109:91–105.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sweis R, Anggiansah A, Wong T, Kaufman E, Obrecht S, Fox M. Normative values and inter-observer agreement for liquid and solid bolus swallows in upright and supine positions as assessed by esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;23:509-e198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roman S, Damon H, Pellissier PE, Mion F. Does body position modify the results of oesophageal high resolution manometry? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010;22:271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xiao Y, Read A, Nicodème F, Roman S, Kahrilas PJ, Pandolfino JE. The effect of a sitting vs supine posture on normative esophageal pressure topography metrics and Chicago classification diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:e509–e516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernhard A, Pohl D, Fried M, Castell DO, Tutuian R. Influence of bolus consistency and position on esophageal high-resolution manometry findings. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;53:1198–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herregods TVK, Roman S, Kahrilas PJ, Smout AJPM, Bredenoord AJ. Normative values in esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;27:175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roman S, Kahrilas PJ, Boris L, Bidari K, Luger D, Pandolfino JE. High-resolution manometry studies are frequently imperfect but usually still interpretable. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:1050–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carlson DA, Roman S. Esophageal provocation tests: are they useful to improve diagnostic yield of high resolution manometry? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30:e13321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gyawali CP, Roman S, Bredenoord AJ, et al. Classification of esophageal motor findings in gastro-esophageal reflux disease: conclusions from an international consensus group. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:e13104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gaddam S, Reddy CA, Munigala S, et al. The learning curve for interpretation of oesophageal high-resolution manometry: a prospective interventional cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;45:291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Desipio J, Friedenberg FK, Korimilli A, Richter JE, Parkman HP, Fisher RS. High-resolution solid-state manometry of the antropyloroduodenal region. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2007;19:188–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;27:160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Savarino E, Ottonello A, Tolone S, et al. Novel insights into esophageal diagnostic procedures. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1380:162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akimoto S, Singhal S, Masuda T, Yamamoto SR, Svetanoff WJ, Mittal SK. Esophagogastric junction morphology and distal esophageal acid exposure. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:3537–3544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gyawali CP, Patel A. Esophageal motor function: technical aspects of manometry. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014;24:527–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ang D, Hollenstein M, Misselwitz B, et al. Rapid drink challenge in high-resolution manometry: an adjunctive test for detection of esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;29:e12902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ghosh SK, Janiak P, Schwizer W, Hebbard GS, Brasseur JG. Physiology of the esophageal pressure transition zone: separate contraction waves above and below. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2006;290:G568–G576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE, Rice J, Clarke JO, Kwiatek M, Kahrilas PJ. Impaired deglutitive EGJ relaxation in clinical esophageal manometry: a quantitative analysis of 400 patients and 75 controls. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2007;293:G878–G885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patel A, Gyawali CP. How to optimally apply impedance in the evaluation of esophageal dysmotility. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kahrilas PJ, Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE. Esophageal motility disorders in terms of pressure topography: the Chicago classification. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roman S, Gyawali CP, Xiao Y, Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ. The Chicago classification of motility disorders: an update. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014;24:545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Conklin JL. Evaluation of esophageal motor function with high-resolution manometry. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;19:281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen J. Ineffective esophageal motility and the vagus: current challenges and future prospects. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2016;9:291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roman S, Lin Z, Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ. Distal contraction latency: a measure of propagation velocity optimized for esophageal pressure topography studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;106:443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khan MA, Kumbhari V, Ngamruengphong S, et al. Is POEM the answer for management of spastic esophageal disorders? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;62:35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fox MR, Bredenoord AJ. Oesophageal high-resolution manometry: moving from research into clinical practice. Gut. 2008;57:405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Monrroy H, Cisternas D, Bilder C, et al. The Chicago classification 3.0 results in more normal findings and fewer hypotensive findings with no difference in other diagnoses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:606–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Uppal DS, Wang AY. Update on the endoscopic treatments for achalasia. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:8670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Triantafyllou T, Doulami G, Papailiou J, Mantides A, Zografos G, Theodorou D. Real-time continuous esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) during laparoscopic Heller myotomy and Dor fundoplication for the treatment of achalasia. A promising novelty in regards of perfecting surgical technique: could it guide surgical technique toward excellent results? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2016;26:e163–e166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yadlapati RPJ. Achalasia update: no longer a tough diagnosis to swallow. New Gastroenterolog. 2015;2015:14–15.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. Expert consensus document: advances in the management of oesophageal motility disorders in the era of high-resolution manometry: a focus on achalasia syndromes. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14:677–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kahrilas P, Pandolfino J. Treatments for achalasia in 2017: how to choose among them. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2017;33:270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Patel A, Mirza FA, Soudagar S, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Achalasia symptom response after Heller myotomy segregated by high-resolution manometry subtypes. J Gastroenterol. 2016;51:112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pandolfino JE, Fox MR, Bredenoord AJ, Kahrilas PJ. High-resolution manometry in clinical practice: utilizing pressure topography to classify oesophageal motility abnormalities. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009;21:796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    DeLay K, Austin GL, Menard-Katcher P. Anatomic abnormalities are common potential explanations of manometric esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28:1166–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jain A, Baker JR, Rubenstein JH, Chen JW. Bolus clearance in esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction is associated with strength of peristalsis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:e13093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schupack D, Katzka DA, Geno DM, Ravi K. The clinical significance of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction and hypercontractile esophagus in high resolution esophageal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:e13105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Smout A, Fox M. Weak and absent peristalsis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cho YK, Lipowska AM, Nicodème F, et al. Assessing bolus retention in achalasia using high-resolution manometry with impedance: a comparator study with timed barium esophagram. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD, et al. Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:808–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Roman S, Gyawali CP, Savarino E, et al. Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms in typical and atypical GERD: roles of gastroesophageal acid refluxes and esophageal motility. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Herregods T, Troelstra M, Weijenborg P, Bredenoord A, Smout A. Patients with refractory symptoms often do not have GERD. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27:1267–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Patel A, Gyawali C. Gastroesophageal reflux monitoring. JAMA. 2018;319:1271–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chan WW, Haroian LR, Gyawali CP. Value of preoperative esophageal function studies before laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2943–2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yadlapati R, Tye M, Roman S, Kahrilas PJ, Ritter K, Pandolfino JE. Postprandial high-resolution impedance manometry identifies mechanisms of nonresponse to proton pump inhibitors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:211–218.e211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fornari F, Bravi I, Penagini R, Tack J, Sifrim D. Multiple rapid swallowing: a complementary test during standard oesophageal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009;21:718-e741.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Martinucci I, Savarino EV, Pandolfino JE, et al. Vigor of peristalsis during multiple rapid swallows is inversely correlated with acid exposure time in patients with NERD. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;28:243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhu ZJ, Chen LQ, Duranceau A. Long-term result of total versus partial fundoplication after esophagomyotomy for primary esophageal motor disorders. World J Surg. 2008;32:401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Strate U, Emmermann A, Fibbe C, Layer P, Zornig C. Laparoscopic fundoplication: Nissen versus Toupet two-year outcome of a prospective randomized study of 200 patients regarding preoperative esophageal motility. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shaker A, Stoikes N, Drapekin J, Kushnir V, Brunt LM, Gyawali CP. Multiple rapid swallow responses during esophageal high-resolution manometry reflect esophageal body peristaltic reserve. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1706–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mello MD, Shriver AR, Li Y, Patel A, Gyawali CP. Ineffective esophageal motility phenotypes following fundoplication in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28:292–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ishita Dhawan
    • 1
  • Brendon O’Connell
    • 2
  • Amit Patel
    • 2
  • Ron Schey
    • 3
  • Henry P. Parkman
    • 3
  • Frank Friedenberg
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Pennsylvania HospitalUniversity of Pennsylvania Health SystemPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gastroenterology, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Gastroenterology Section, Department of Medicine, Lewis Katz School of MedicineTemple University School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations