The Chicago Classification of Motility Disorders: An Update

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 545-561

  Roman, Sabine ^a   Gyawali, C Prakash ^b   Xiao, Yinglian ^c   Pandolfino, John E ^d   Kahrilas, Peter J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Achalasia; Aperistalsis; Distal esophageal spasm; Esophageal high resolution manometry; Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction; Hypercontractile esophagus; Ineffective esophageal motility

Indexed keywords

APERISTALSIS; ESOPHAGUS ACHALASIA; ESOPHAGUS FUNCTION DISORDER; ESOPHAGUS MOTILITY; ESOPHAGUS SPASM; HIATUS HERNIA; HIGH RESOLUTION MANOMETRY; HUMAN; HYPERCONTRACTILE ESOPHAGUS; LOWER ESOPHAGUS SPHINCTER; MANOMETRY; REVIEW; STOMACH PRESSURE; UPPER ESOPHAGUS SPHINCTER; CLASSIFICATION; ESOPHAGUS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERISTALSIS; PHYSIOLOGY; SWALLOWING;

DEGLUTITION; ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY DISORDERS; ESOPHAGOGASTRIC JUNCTION; ESOPHAGUS; HUMANS; MANOMETRY; PERISTALSIS;

EID: 84912532416     PISSN: 10525157     EISSN: 15581950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2014.07.001     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Soudagar A.S., Sayuk G.S., Gyawali C.P. Learners favour high resolution oesophageal manometry with better diagnostic accuracy over conventional line tracings. Gut 2012, 61(6):798-803.
2. Pandolfino J.E., Fox M.R., Bredenoord A.J., et al. High-resolution manometry in clinical practice: utilizing pressure topography to classify oesophageal motility abnormalities. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2009, 21(8):796-806.
3. Bredenoord A.J., Fox M., Kahrilas P.J., et al. Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography (EPT). Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 24(Suppl 1):57-65.
4. Bogte A., Bredenoord A.J., Oors J., et al. Normal values for esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013, 25(9):762.e579.
5. Ghosh S.K., Pandolfino J.E., Rice J., et al. Impaired deglutitive EGJ relaxation in clinical esophageal manometry: a quantitative analysis of 400 patients and 75 controls. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2007, 293(4):G878-G885.
6. Ghosh S.K., Pandolfino J.E., Zhang Q., et al. Quantifying esophageal peristalsis with high-resolution manometry: a study of 75 asymptomatic volunteers. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2006, 290(5):G988-G997.
7. Kessing B.F., Weijenborg P.W., Smout A.J., et al. Water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry: normal values and validation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2014, 306(6):G491-G495.
8. Niebisch S., Wilshire C.L., Peters J.H. Systematic analysis of esophageal pressure topography in high-resolution manometry of 68 normal volunteers. Dis Esophagus 2013, 26(7):651-660.
9. Sweis R., Anggiansah A., Wong T., et al. Normative values and inter-observer agreement for liquid and solid bolus swallows in upright and supine positions as assessed by esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011, 23(6):509.e198.
10. Weijenborg P.W., Kessing B.F., Smout A.J., et al. Normal values for solid-state esophageal high-resolution manometry in a European population; an overview of all current metrics. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014, 26(5):654-659.
11. Xiao Y., Read A., Nicodeme F., et al. The effect of a sitting vs supine posture on normative esophageal pressure topography metrics and Chicago classification diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 24(10):e509-e516.
12. Pandolfino J.E., Kim H., Ghosh S.K., et al. High-resolution manometry of the EGJ: an analysis of crural diaphragm function in GERD. Am J Gastroenterol 2007, 102(5):1056-1063.
13. Bredenoord A.J., Weusten B.L., Timmer R., et al. Intermittent spatial separation of diaphragm and lower esophageal sphincter favors acidic and weakly acidic reflux. Gastroenterology 2006, 130(2):334-340.
14. Xiao Y., Kahrilas P.J., Nicodeme F., et al. Lack of correlation between HRM metrics and symptoms during the manometric protocol. Am J Gastroenterol 2014, 109(4):521-526.
15. Roman S., Pandolfino J.E., Chen J., et al. Phenotypes and clinical context of hypercontractility in high resolution pressure topography (EPT). Am J Gastroenterol 2012, 107(1):37-45.
16. Pandolfino J.E., Leslie E., Luger D., et al. The contractile deceleration point: an important physiologic landmark on oesophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010, 22(4):395-400.
17. Lin Z., Pandolfino J.E., Xiao Y., et al. Localizing the contractile deceleration point (CDP) in patients with abnormal esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 24(10):972-975.
18. Pandolfino J.E., Roman S., Carlson D., et al. Distal esophageal spasm in high-resolution esophageal pressure topography: defining clinical phenotypes. Gastroenterology 2011, 141(2):469-475.
19. Pandolfino J.E., Kwiatek M.A., Nealis T., et al. Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology 2008, 135(5):1526-1533.
20. Lin Z., Kahrilas P.J., Roman S., et al. Refining the criterion for an abnormal Integrated Relaxation Pressure in esophageal pressure topography based on the pattern of esophageal contractility using a classification and regression tree model. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 24(8):e356-e363.
21. Roman S., Kahrilas P.J., Mion F., et al. Partial recovery of peristalsis after myotomy for achalasia: more the rule than the exception. JAMA Surg 2013, 148(2):157-164.
22. Kumar N., Porter R.F., Chanin J.M., et al. Analysis of intersegmental trough and proximal latency of smooth muscle contraction using high-resolution esophageal manometry. JClin Gastroenterol 2012, 46(5):375-381.
23. Blonski W., Vela M., Safder A., et al. Revised criterion for diagnosis of ineffective esophageal motility is associated with more frequent dysphagia and greater bolus transit abnormalities. Am J Gastroenterol 2008, 103(3):699-704.
24. Xiao Y., Kahrilas P.J., Kwasny M.J., et al. High-resolution manometry correlates of ineffective esophageal motility. Am J Gastroenterol 2012, 107(11):1647-1654.
25. Fornari F., Bravi I., Penagini R., et al. Multiple rapid swallowing: a complementary test during standard oesophageal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2009, 21(7):718.e41.
26. Shaker A., Stoikes N., Drapekin J., et al. Multiple rapid swallow responses during esophageal high-resolution manometry reflect esophageal body peristaltic reserve. Am J Gastroenterol 2013, 108(11):1706-1712.
27. Roman S., Lin Z., Kwiatek M.A., et al. Weak peristalsis in esophageal pressure topography: classification and association with dysphagia. Am J Gastroenterol 2011, 106(2):349-356.
28. Porter R.F., Kumar N., Drapekin J.E., et al. Fragmented esophageal smooth muscle contraction segments on high resolution manometry: a marker of esophageal hypomotility. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 24:763-e353.
29. Omari T.I., Dejaeger E., van Beckevoort D., et al. Amethod to objectively assess swallow function in adults with suspected aspiration. Gastroenterology 2011, 140(5):1454-1463.
30. Lin Z., Imam H., Nicodeme F., et al. Flow time through esophagogastric junction derived during high-resolution impedance-manometry studies: a novel parameter for assessing esophageal bolus transit. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2014, [Epub ahead of print].
31. Rommel N., Van Oudenhove L., Tack J., et al. Automated impedance manometry analysis as a method to assess esophageal function. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014, 26(5):636-645.
32. Daum C., Sweis R., Kaufman E., et al. Failure to respond to physiologic challenge characterizes esophageal motility in erosive gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011, 23(6):517.e200.
33. Sweis R., Anggiansah A., Wong T., et al. Assessment of esophageal dysfunction and symptoms during and after a standardized test meal: development and clinical validation of a new methodology utilizing high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014, 26(2):215-228.