Objective: A definitive diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) depends on endoscopic and/or pH‐study criteria. However, high resolution manometry (HRM) can identify factors predicting GERD, such as ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), esophago‐gastric junction contractile integral (EGJ‐CI), evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) type and straight leg raise (SLR) maneuver response. We aimed to build and externally validate a manometric score (Milan Score) to stratify the risk and severity of the disease in patients undergoing HRM for suspected GERD.Methods: A population of 295 consecutive patients undergoing HRM and pH‐study for persistent typical or atypical GERD symptoms was prospectively enrolled to build a model and a nomogram that provides a risk score for AET > 6%. Collected HRM data included IEM, EGJ‐CI, EGJ type and SLR. A supplemental cohort of patients undergoing HRM and pH‐study was also prospectively enrolled in 13 high‐volume esophageal function laboratories across the world in order to validate the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model's accuracy. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was defined as acid exposure time >6%.Results: Out of the analyzed variables, SLR response and EGJ subtype 3 had the highest impact on the score (odd ratio 18.20 and 3.87, respectively). The external validation cohort consisted of 233 patients. In the validation model, the corrected Harrel c‐index was 0.90. The model‐fitting optimism adjusted calibration slope was 0.93 and the integrated calibration index was 0.07, indicating good calibration.Conclusions: A novel HRM score for GERD diagnosis has been created and validated. The MS might be a useful screening tool to stratify the risk and the severity of GERD, allowing a more comprehensive pathophysiologic assessment of the anti‐reflux barrier.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05851482).

INTRODUCTION: Visual Analog Scales (VAS) are simple, easy for patients to comprehend, and require limited translation. We evaluated the value of esophageal global symptom severity (GSS) measured using VAS in assessing initial reflux symptom burden as compared with other validated questionnaires, esophageal symptom burden, and outcome after reflux management. METHODS: We analyzed pooled data from published historical cohorts of patients undergoing pH-impedance testing for reflux symptoms from 3 continents (North America, Europe, Asia). Univariate (Spearman correlation), multivariable (general linear regression), and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to compare GSS with validated symptom instruments including gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire (GERDQ), GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL), Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), and metrics from pH-impedance monitoring per Lyon Consensus 2.0. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-six patients (mean age 52.0 years, 61.9% female) were included: 937, 197, and 162 from North America, Europe, and Asia, respectively. GSS significantly correlated with GERDQ (R = 0.455), GERD-HRQL (R = 0.440), RSI (R = 0.491), acid exposure time (AET) (R = 0.158), and total reflux episodes (R = 0.161) (P < 0.0001 for each comparison). The mean GSS was higher with abnormal GERDQ, GERD-HRQL, RSI, pathologic AET, and conclusive GERD per Lyon Consensus (P < 0.0001 each comparison). On receiver operating characteristic analyses, GSS was noninferior to GERDQ, GERD-HRQL, and RSI in predicting pathologic AET and total reflux episodes, and conclusive GERD. Percentage improvement in GSS after antireflux treatment significantly correlated with change in GERDQ (R = 0.536, P < 0.0001) and treatment satisfaction (R = 0.532 P = 0.0002). On multivariable linear regression analyses, percentage change in GSS remained an independent predictor of both change in GERDQ (β = 0.813, P < 0.0001) and satisfaction with antireflux therapy (β = 1.90, P = 0.0006). DISCUSSION: GSS correlates with other validated reflux questionnaires and discriminates abnormal from normal reflux burden in patients with reflux symptoms. GSS change also reflects reflux treatment outcome and satisfaction. GSS is a useful addition to patient symptom assessment before and after GERD treatment.

Background: Open esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure in patients with liver cirrhosis. With the advent of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the overall morbidity and mortality rates of esophagectomy have decreased. The aim of this study was to describe short-term outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy in patients with proven liver cirrhosis. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study. Demographics, preoperative clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy for carcinoma were analyzed. Patients with concomitant liver cirrhosis were compared to patients without liver cirrhosis undergoing similar surgical procedures. In addition, variables possibly associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis were investigated. Results: Out of 443 patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, 18 (4.1%) had concomitant liver cirrhosis. Demographics and preoperative clinical variables were similar in the 2 patient groups. While the overall morbidity rate was similar, the 90-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with liver cirrhosis (P = .023). There was a significantly higher rate of sepsis and anastomotic, respiratory, and hemorrhagic complications in patients with liver cirrhosis who died in the postoperative period. Conclusions: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is feasible in patients with liver cirrhosis. Future strategies should focus on total minimally invasive procedures and early recognition of surgical complications.

Introduction: High‐resolution manometry (HRM) allows assessment of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) disruption. While type 3 EGJ predicts definitive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), type 2 EGJ is less clearly implicated in GERD pathogenesis. This study aimed to characterize physiologic findings in type 2 EGJ to determine if the HRM‐based Milan Score can define GERD within type 2 EGJ. Methods: 535 patients with suspected GERD who underwent HRM and reflux monitoring were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical, HRM, and reflux study data were compared between the EGJ morphology subtypes, with objective GERD defined according to Lyon Consensus 2.0. The Milan Score, a novel metric that integrates ineffective esophageal motility, EGJ‐contractile integral, EGJ morphology, and straight leg raise response, was abnormal when ≥ 137 (risk rate 50% for GERD). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of the Milan Score to predict objective GERD. Results: Type 3 EGJ was associated with the highest rate of objective GERD, followed by type 2 and type 1 EGJ ( p < 0.001), with a corresponding stepwise increase in AET from type 1 to 3 EGJ (p < 0.001). Type 2 EGJ with Milan Score < 137 resembled type 1 EGJ (objective GERD in 23.6% vs. 33.2%, p = 0.09), and type 2 EGJ with score ≥ 137 resembled type 3 EGJ (objective GERD in 88.2% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.11). On ROC analysis, the Milan Score had an area under the curve of 0.858. Conclusion: While type 2 EGJ includes varying GERD severity, the Milan Score can segregate patients at risk for objective GERD.