Background/Aims: Incorporation of complementary and provocative test swallows to the high-resolution manometry (HRM) protocol offers potential to address limitations posed by HRM protocols that involve only a single swallow type. The aim of this study is to describe normal findings of a comprehensive HRM testing protocol performed on healthy asymptomatic volunteers. Methods: Thirty healthy asymptomatic volunteers completed HRM with 5-mL liquid swallows in the supine position. They also completed 5-mL liquid swallows in the upright position, viscous swallows, solid test swallows, multiple rapid swallows, and a rapid drink challenge.HRM studies were analyzed via Chicago classification version 3.0. Results: The median (5th-95th percentiles) for integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) on supine swallows was 11 (4-16) mmHg; IRP was lower than supine on upright liquid 9 (0-17) mmHg, viscous 6 (0-15) mmHg, solid 9 (1-19) mmHg, multiple rapid swallows 3 (0-12) mmHg, and rapid drink challenge 5 (–3-12) mmHg; P < 0.005. While an “elevated” IRP value was observed on 1 to 2 test maneuvers in 8/30 (27%) subjects, all 30 subjects had an IRP value < 12 mmHg on at least one of the test maneuvers. Conclusions Normal values and findings from a comprehensive HRM testing protocol are reported based on evaluation of 30 healthy asymptomatic volunteers. Isolated “abnormalities” of IRP and contractile parameters were observed in the majority (80%) of these asymptomatic subjects, while all subjects also had normal features observed. Thus, the definition of “normal” should be recalibrated to focus on the entirety of the study and not individual metrics.

Background/Aims: Incorporation of complementary and provocative test swallows to the high-resolution manometry (HRM) protocol offers potential to address limitations posed by HRM protocols that involve only a single swallow type. The aim of this study is to describe normal findings of a comprehensive HRM testing protocol performed on healthy asymptomatic volunteers. Methods: Thirty healthy asymptomatic volunteers completed HRM with 5-mL liquid swallows in the supine position. They also completed 5-mL liquid swallows in the upright position, viscous swallows, solid test swallows, multiple rapid swallows, and a rapid drink challenge.HRM studies were analyzed via Chicago classification version 3.0. Results: The median (5th-95th percentiles) for integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) on supine swallows was 11 (4-16) mmHg; IRP was lower than supine on upright liquid 9 (0-17) mmHg, viscous 6 (0-15) mmHg, solid 9 (1-19) mmHg, multiple rapid swallows 3 (0-12) mmHg, and rapid drink challenge 5 (–3-12) mmHg; P < 0.005. While an “elevated” IRP value was observed on 1 to 2 test maneuvers in 8/30 (27%) subjects, all 30 subjects had an IRP value < 12 mmHg on at least one of the test maneuvers. Conclusions Normal values and findings from a comprehensive HRM testing protocol are reported based on evaluation of 30 healthy asymptomatic volunteers. Isolated “abnormalities” of IRP and contractile parameters were observed in the majority (80%) of these asymptomatic subjects, while all subjects also had normal features observed. Thus, the definition of “normal” should be recalibrated to focus on the entirety of the study and not individual metrics.

Background/Aims: High-resolution manometry (HRM) performed without sedation is the standard procedure. However, some patients cannot tolerate transnasal placement of the manometry catheter. We aim to assess the practice of performing manometry after endoscopy with conscious sedation by evaluating its impact on esophageal motility findings. Methods: Twelve asymptomatic adult volunteers and 7 adult patients completed high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) approximately 1 hour after conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl (post-sedation) and again on a different day with no-sedation. The nosedation HRIM involved 2 series of swallows separated in time by 20 minutes (no-sedation-1 and no-sedation-2) for the volunteers; patients completed only 1 series of swallows for no-sedation HRM. Results: A motility diagnosis of normal motility was observed in all 12 volunteers post-sedation. Two volunteers had a diagnosis of borderline ineffective esophageal motility, one during the no-sedation-1 period and the other during the no-sedation-2 period; all of the other no-sedation HRIM studies yielded a normal motility diagnosis. Six of seven patients had the same diagnosis in both no-sedation and post-sedation HRM, including 1 distal esophageal spasm, 3 achalasia (2 type II and 1 type III), and 2 esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Only one patient’s HRM classification changed from ineffective esophageal motility at no-sedation to normal esophageal motility at post-sedation. Conclusions Performing HRIM after endoscopy with conscious sedation had minimal clinical impact on the motility diagnosis or motility parameters. Thus, this approach may be a viable alternative for patients who cannot tolerate unsedated catheter placement.