Background/Aims: Ineffective esophageal motility is the most frequent disorder of esophageal peristalsis. Symptoms may include dysphagia, chest pain, and heartburn. Our aims are to evaluate the long-term prognosis and determine if provocative tests during high-resolution esophageal manometry could predict the prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively assessed high resolution manometries performed between 2015-2018 in adult patients. Symptoms were evaluatedat baseline and at follow-up (median 39 months later) using the impact dysphagia questionnaire (IDQ-10), where a score ≥ 7 defined dysphagia, the gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GerdQ), where a score ≥ 9 defined symptoms of reflux disease and if the subject had chest pain ≥ once a week. Chicago classifications version 3.0 and 4.0 were used. The contractile reserve was assessed by identifying whether esophageal peristalsis normalized or not on solid bolus swallows and a rapid drink challenge was included. Results: Nine hundred and eighty investigations performed during the study period; 114 patients (11.6%) were identified with ineffective esophageal motility. The final study cohort consisted of 33 patients of which 42% had dysphagia at follow-up and 25% had chest pain at least once a week, 46% had reflux symptoms. Patients who normalized motility on solid bolus swallows reported less dysphagia upon follow-up (P = 0.012), nevertheless reported similar proportions of chest pain (P = 0.632), and reflux (P = 0.514).There were no associations between having dysphagia, chest pain, or reflux at follow-up, and abnormal findings on the rapid drinkchallenge (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusions Patients with ineffective esophageal motility continue to experience long-term esophageal symptoms at follow-up. Provocative testsseem to have the potential to partly predict the long-term prognosis of dysphagia.

Background/Aims: Ineffective esophageal motility is the most frequent disorder of esophageal peristalsis. Symptoms may include dysphagia, chest pain, and heartburn. Our aims are to evaluate the long-term prognosis and determine if provocative tests during high-resolution esophageal manometry could predict the prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively assessed high resolution manometries performed between 2015-2018 in adult patients. Symptoms were evaluatedat baseline and at follow-up (median 39 months later) using the impact dysphagia questionnaire (IDQ-10), where a score ≥ 7 defined dysphagia, the gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GerdQ), where a score ≥ 9 defined symptoms of reflux disease and if the subject had chest pain ≥ once a week. Chicago classifications version 3.0 and 4.0 were used. The contractile reserve was assessed by identifying whether esophageal peristalsis normalized or not on solid bolus swallows and a rapid drink challenge was included. Results: Nine hundred and eighty investigations performed during the study period; 114 patients (11.6%) were identified with ineffective esophageal motility. The final study cohort consisted of 33 patients of which 42% had dysphagia at follow-up and 25% had chest pain at least once a week, 46% had reflux symptoms. Patients who normalized motility on solid bolus swallows reported less dysphagia upon follow-up (P = 0.012), nevertheless reported similar proportions of chest pain (P = 0.632), and reflux (P = 0.514).There were no associations between having dysphagia, chest pain, or reflux at follow-up, and abnormal findings on the rapid drinkchallenge (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusions Patients with ineffective esophageal motility continue to experience long-term esophageal symptoms at follow-up. Provocative testsseem to have the potential to partly predict the long-term prognosis of dysphagia.

Background/Aims: Ineffective esophageal motility is the most frequent disorder of esophageal peristalsis. Symptoms may include dysphagia, chest pain, and heartburn. Our aims are to evaluate the long-term prognosis and determine if provocative tests during high-resolution esophageal manometry could predict the prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively assessed high resolution manometries performed between 2015-2018 in adult patients. Symptoms were evaluatedat baseline and at follow-up (median 39 months later) using the impact dysphagia questionnaire (IDQ-10), where a score ≥ 7 defined dysphagia, the gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GerdQ), where a score ≥ 9 defined symptoms of reflux disease and if the subject had chest pain ≥ once a week. Chicago classifications version 3.0 and 4.0 were used. The contractile reserve was assessed by identifying whether esophageal peristalsis normalized or not on solid bolus swallows and a rapid drink challenge was included. Results: Nine hundred and eighty investigations performed during the study period; 114 patients (11.6%) were identified with ineffective esophageal motility. The final study cohort consisted of 33 patients of which 42% had dysphagia at follow-up and 25% had chest pain at least once a week, 46% had reflux symptoms. Patients who normalized motility on solid bolus swallows reported less dysphagia upon follow-up (P = 0.012), nevertheless reported similar proportions of chest pain (P = 0.632), and reflux (P = 0.514).There were no associations between having dysphagia, chest pain, or reflux at follow-up, and abnormal findings on the rapid drinkchallenge (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusions Patients with ineffective esophageal motility continue to experience long-term esophageal symptoms at follow-up. Provocative testsseem to have the potential to partly predict the long-term prognosis of dysphagia.

Background/Aims: Visceral hypersensitivity is an important pathophysiologic mechanism in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We compared 2 barostat distension protocols and their ability to distinguish between IBS patients and healthy controls, identify subjects with rectal hypersensitivity, and their associations with gastrointestinal symptom severity. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients at our unit that had undergone barostat investigations 2002-2014. Protocol 1 (n = 369) used phasic isobaric distensions with stepwise increments in pressure and protocol 2 (n = 153) used pressure controlled ramp inflations.Both protocols terminated when subjects reported pain or maximum pressure was reached. Thresholds for first sensation, urgency, discomfort and pain were established. Age- and gender-matched controls were used for comparison. The gastrointestinal symptom rating scale–IBS, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale were used for symptom reports. Results: A significantly higher proportion of patients was classified as having hypersensitivity in protocol 1 vs protocol 2 for all thresholds (P < 0.001). Patients with visceral hypersensitivity, defined based on rectal pain thresholds in protocol 1 had more severe gastrointestinal symptoms overall as well as anxiety, whereas these associations were weaker or in most cases absent when visceral hypersensitivity was defined based on rectal pain thresholds in protocol 2. Conclusion Our study indicates that a rectal barostat protocol using phasic isobaric distensions with stepwise pressure increments is more sensitive in IBS patients with respect to identifying subjects with rectal hypersensitivity and a link with IBS symptoms.