Background and Aims: Prior studies have identified predictors of inadequate preparation with limited success. We aimed to build a model that could predict the likelihood of inadequate preparation by also including factors related to the patient’s reaction to drinking the laxative preparation. Methods: Demographic, clinical, and preparation-related data were prospectively collected on patients undergoing colonoscopy. An inadequate preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale < 6. Statistical analyses were performed to identify predictors of inadequate preparation and create a predictive model. Results: 324 patients were included (age 67 +/− 14 years, 52% male). 77 (23.7%) had inadequate preparations. Diabetes (p < 0.001), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (p < 0.001), incomplete prep consumption (p = 0.007), high school level education and above (p < 0.001), use of Bisacodyl (p = 0.005), >10 bowel movements (p = 0.02), and use of Sodium Picosulfate or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (2L) compared to PEG 3L (p < 0.001) were significant variables. In a multivariate analysis, prior CVA increased the risk for inadequate preparation (OR = 4.8, CI 1.6–14.5), whereas high school level education and above (OR = 0.4, CI 0.2–0.8), consumption of Bisacodyl (OR = 0.4, CI 0.2–0.8), >10 bowel movements (OR = 0.5, CI 0.3–0.9), and use of Sodium Picosulfate (OR = 0.5, CI 0.3–0.9) decreased the risk for inadequate prep. Using these, a predictive model for patients likely to have an inadequate colon preparation was created with an area under the curve of 0.74 (35% sensitivity, 90% specificity at a cutoff point of 39%). Conclusion: Given the low sensitivity, this predictive model does not appear ready for clinical use. However, due to its high specificity, it may be helpful in high-risk, sicker populations by preventing inadequately prepped procedures.

Background: Patients with absent contractility (AC) often suffer from either reflux or dysphagia. It remains unclear what factors determine which phenotype patients present with. We sought to evaluate if high-resolution manometry metrics, especially integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), could explain this. Methods: Cases of AC from three medical centers were reviewed for demographic, clinical, and manometric data. Cases with an IRP between 10–15 mmHg or subsequent diagnosis of achalasia were excluded. Results: 69 subjects were included (mean age 56.1; 71% female). A total of 41 (59.4%) were reflux-predominant. The reflux-predominant group was younger (51.1 vs. 63.5, p = 0.002) and had lower median LES basal pressures (7.5 vs. 12.5 mmHg, p = 0.014) and IRP values (1.5 vs. 5.6 mmHg, p < 0.001) compared to the dysphagia group. When divided into tertiles, the trend in symptoms between LES basal pressure tertiles was not significant. However, the trend for IRP was significant (p < 0.001). For example, in the lowest IRP tertile, 91.3% of subjects were reflux-predominant compared to only 26.1% in the highest tertile, while the dysphagia-predominant group increased from 8.7% to 73.9%. In a regression model controlling for age and using IRP tertile 1 as the reference, having an IRP in tertile 2 increased the likelihood of having dysphagia-predominant disease by 7, while being in tertile 3 increased the likelihood by 22. Conclusions: IRP helps distinguish between the reflux-predominant and dysphagia-predominant phenotypes of AC. This may have therapeutic clinical consequences as procedures such as fundoplication to tighten the LES may benefit patients with reflux and a low IRP, while procedures like peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) to disrupt the LES may benefit patients with dysphagia and a relatively high IRP.

Background: Achalasia is characterized by aperistalsis with poor relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). We aimed to systematically assess whether LES metrics on high-resolution manometry (HRM) correlate with the symptomatic or endoscopic presentation of patients with achalasia. Methods: A retrospective study was performed at two tertiary medical centers. All cases of newly diagnosed, untreated achalasia were reviewed for demographics, symptoms, and endoscopic findings. These were correlated with HRM metrics, including LES basal pressure (LESP), integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), percent LES relaxation, and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) morphology. Results: 108 achalasia patients were included; 56 (51.9%) were men, with a mean overall age of 55.6 ± 17.9 years old. Achalasia subtypes included 23.1% with Type I, 65.7% Type II, and 11.1% Type III. Mean LESP was 40.9 ± 13.7 mmHg, IRP 26.8 ± 11.5 mmHg, with 36% ± 20% LES relaxation. On univariate analyses, a higher IRP was associated with age < 50 (p = 0.028), female sex (p = 0.030), Arab ethnicity (p < 0.001), weight loss (p = 0.016), a tortuous esophagus (p = 0.036), and resistance at the EGJ (p = 0.033). However, on multivariate regression analyses, only ethnicity remained significantly associated with IRP. No unique variables were associated with either LESP or percent LES relaxation. Achalasia subtype and Eckardt score were not associated with any LES metrics. Non-Type 1 EGJ morphology was associated with a lower LESP. Conclusions: LES metrics on HRM do not appear to correlate with the clinical or endoscopic presentation of patients with untreated achalasia.

(1) Background: Absent contractility (AC) is an esophageal motility disorder defined as a normal integrated relaxation pressure with 100% failed peristalsis. We sought to clarify the natural history of this disorder and its relationship with rheumatologic diseases, such as systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). (2) Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with AC based on high-resolution manometry findings at three referral institutions and then matched them with controls with esophageal complaints who had normal manometries. (3) Results: Seventy-four patients with AC were included (mean age 56 years; 69% female). Sixteen patients (21.6%) had a rheumatologic disease. Compared to controls, patients with AC were significantly more likely to present with heartburn, dysphagia, vomiting, and weight loss. During follow-up, they were also more likely to be seen by a gastroenterologist, be diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease, take a proton pump inhibitor, and undergo repeat upper endoscopies. No AC patients developed a new rheumatologic disease during follow-up. No significant differences were noted in the clinical presentation or course of AC patients with rheumatologic disease compared to those without. (4) Conclusions: Patients with AC have more esophageal symptoms and require more intense gastrointestinal follow-up than controls. Only a minority of patients with AC have underlying rheumatologic disease. Those without rheumatologic disease at baseline did not subsequently develop one, suggesting that a rheumatologic evaluation is likely unnecessary. The clinical course of AC in patients with rheumatologic disease and those without appears to be similar.

Objectives: Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is the gold standard for diagnosing esophageal motility disorders, but it may be poorly tolerated and unsuccessful. We sought to evaluate a protocol for sedation and endoscopy-assisted (SEA) HRM in patients who previously failed standard HRM and assess patient perspectives towards it. Methods: Adult patients who previously failed HRM were prospectively enrolled. Under propofol sedation, an upper endoscopy was performed during which the HRM catheter was advanced under endoscopic visualization. If the catheter did not reach the stomach on its own, the endoscope itself or a snare was used to help it traverse the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). Results: Thirty patients participated (mean age 67.8, 70% female). The technical success of SEA-HRM was 100%. Twenty-two (73.3%) were diagnosed with a motility disorder including thirteen (43.3%) with achalasia. Eighteen (60%) had previously failed HRM due to discomfort/intolerance, while twelve (40%) failed due to catheter coiling in the esophagus. Subjects in the coiling group were more likely to need endoscopic assistance to traverse the EGJ (91.7% vs. 27.7%, p = 0.001) and have a motility disorder (100.0% vs. 55.6%, p = 0.010), including achalasia (75.0% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.004), compared to the discomfort/intolerance group. All patients preferred SEA-HRM and rated it higher than standard HRM (9.5 ± 1.3 vs. 1.9 ± 2.1, p = <0.001, on a scale of 1–10). Conclusions: SEA-HRM is a highly successful and well-tolerated option in patients who previously failed standard HRM. This should be the recommended approach in cases of failed HRM rather than secondary tests of esophageal motility.