TY - JOUR
T1 - Ineffective esophageal motility
T2 - Characterization and outcomes across pediatric neurogastroenterology and motility centers in the United States
AU - Davis, Trevor A.
AU - Rogers, Benjamin D.
AU - Llanos-Chea, Alejandro
AU - Krasaelap, Amornluck
AU - Banks, Darnna
AU - Ambartsumyan, Lusine
AU - Sanchez, Raul E.
AU - Yacob, Desale
AU - Baker, Corey
AU - Rey, Adriana Prada
AU - Desai, Chaitri
AU - Rottier, Aaron
AU - Jayaraman, Mayuri
AU - Khorrami, Camila
AU - Dorfman, Lev
AU - El-Chammas, Khalil
AU - Mansi, Sherief
AU - Chiou, Eric
AU - Chumpitazi, Bruno P.
AU - Balakrishnan, Kesha
AU - Puri, Neetu B.
AU - Rodriguez, Leonel
AU - Garza, Jose M.
AU - Saps, Miguel
AU - Gyawali, Chandra Prakash
AU - Patel, Dhiren
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - Objectives: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) on high-resolution manometry (HRM) is not consistently associated with specific clinical syndromes or outcomes. We evaluated the prevalence, clinical features, management, and outcomes of pediatric IEM patients across the United States. Methods: Clinical and manometric characteristics of children undergoing esophageal HRM during 2021−2022 were collected from 12 pediatric motility centers. Clinical presentation, test results, management strategies, and outcomes were compared between children with IEM and normal HRM. Results: Of 236 children (median age 15 years, 63.6% female, 79.2% Caucasian), 62 (23.6%) patients had IEM, and 174 (73.7%) patients had normal HRM, with similar demographics, medical history, clinical presentation, and median symptom duration. Reflux monitoring was performed more often for IEM patients (25.8% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.002), but other adjunctive testing was similar. Among 101 patients with follow-up, symptomatic cohorts declined in both groups in relation to the initial presentation (p > 0.107 for each comparison) with management targeting symptoms, particularly acid suppression. Though prokinetics were used more often and behavioral therapy less often in IEM (p ≤ 0.015 for each comparison), symptom outcomes were similar between IEM and normal HRM. Despite a higher proportion with residual dysphagia on follow-up in IEM (64.0% vs. 39.1%, p = 0.043), an alternate mechanism for dysphagia was identified more often in IEM (68.8%) compared to normal HRM (27.8%, p = 0.017). Conclusions: IEM is a descriptive manometric pattern rather than a clinical diagnosis requiring specific intervention in children. Management based on clinical presentation provides consistent symptom outcomes.
AB - Objectives: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) on high-resolution manometry (HRM) is not consistently associated with specific clinical syndromes or outcomes. We evaluated the prevalence, clinical features, management, and outcomes of pediatric IEM patients across the United States. Methods: Clinical and manometric characteristics of children undergoing esophageal HRM during 2021−2022 were collected from 12 pediatric motility centers. Clinical presentation, test results, management strategies, and outcomes were compared between children with IEM and normal HRM. Results: Of 236 children (median age 15 years, 63.6% female, 79.2% Caucasian), 62 (23.6%) patients had IEM, and 174 (73.7%) patients had normal HRM, with similar demographics, medical history, clinical presentation, and median symptom duration. Reflux monitoring was performed more often for IEM patients (25.8% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.002), but other adjunctive testing was similar. Among 101 patients with follow-up, symptomatic cohorts declined in both groups in relation to the initial presentation (p > 0.107 for each comparison) with management targeting symptoms, particularly acid suppression. Though prokinetics were used more often and behavioral therapy less often in IEM (p ≤ 0.015 for each comparison), symptom outcomes were similar between IEM and normal HRM. Despite a higher proportion with residual dysphagia on follow-up in IEM (64.0% vs. 39.1%, p = 0.043), an alternate mechanism for dysphagia was identified more often in IEM (68.8%) compared to normal HRM (27.8%, p = 0.017). Conclusions: IEM is a descriptive manometric pattern rather than a clinical diagnosis requiring specific intervention in children. Management based on clinical presentation provides consistent symptom outcomes.
KW - esophageal motility disorder
KW - high-resolution manometry
KW - pediatric IEM
KW - pediatric motility disorder
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85198546145&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jpn3.12324
DO - 10.1002/jpn3.12324
M3 - Article
C2 - 39010786
AN - SCOPUS:85198546145
SN - 0277-2116
VL - 79
SP - 541
EP - 549
JO - Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition
JF - Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition
IS - 3
ER -