4.3 Article

High-resolution Impedance Manometry Criteria in the Sitting Position Indicative of Incomplete Bolus Clearance

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 491-496

Publisher

KOREAN SOC NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY & MOTILITY
DOI: 10.5056/jnm14012

Keywords

High-resolution impedance manometry; Incomplete bolus clearance; Sitting position

Funding

  1. Soonchunhyang University Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims We used high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) to determine the length of breaks on the isobaric contour which would predict incomplete bolus clearance in patients in the sitting position. Methods In total, 651 swallows in 71 patients with esophageal symptoms were studied using a solid-state HRIM system in the sitting position. Each swallow was classified as complete or incomplete bolus clearance by impedance criteria and peristaltic integrity was evaluated using 20- and 30-mmHg pressure topography isobaric contours. Correlations between the lengths of the breaks for 20- and 30-mmHg were analyzed. Results Complete bolus clearance was observed in 83.3% (542/651) of swallows. Breaks of 3 and 7 cm or less were associated with a bolus clearance of 96.8% on the 20-mmHg and 94.7% on the 30-mmHg isobaric contour, respectively (P < 0.001). The areas under the ROC curves for the 20 and 30 mmHg isobaric contours were 0.900 and 0.950, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for complete bolus clearance were 75.6% and 89.3% for breaks 3 cm or less on the 20-mmHg isobaric contour and 87.9% and 78.7% for breaks 7 cm or less on the 30-mmHg contour (P < 0.001). Conclusions Breaks of < 3 cm in the 20-mmHg isobaric contour or < 7 cm in the 30-mmHg isobaric contour were associated with complete bolus clearance. The threshold for breaks in the sitting position was greater than previous reports using the supine position and longer breaks predicted incomplete bolus clearance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available