Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Achalasia symptom response after Heller myotomy segregated by high-resolution manometry subtypes

  • Original Article—Alimentary Tract
  • Published:
Journal of Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Achalasia is classified into three HRM subtypes that predict outcomes from diverse management strategies. We assessed if symptomatic response varied when a single management strategy—Heller myotomy (HM)—is employed.

Methods

Treatment-naive subjects with achalasia referred for HM were followed in this observational cohort study. Chicago criteria designated achalasia subtypes (subtype I: no esophageal pressurization; subtype II: panesophageal pressurization in ≥20 % swallows; subtype III: premature contractions in ≥20 % swallows). Symptom questionnaires assessed symptom burden before and after HM on five-point Likert scales (0 = no symptoms, 4 = severe symptoms) and on 10-cm visual analog scales (global symptom severity, GSS); satisfaction with HM was recorded similarly. Data were analyzed to determine predictors of GSS change across subtypes.

Results

Sixty achalasia subjects (56.1 ± 2.4 years, 55 % female) fulfilled inclusion criteria, 15 % with subtype I, 58 % with subtype II, and 27 % with subtype III achalasia. Baseline symptoms included dysphagia (solids: 85 %, liquids: 73 %), regurgitation (84 %), and chest pain (35 %); mean GSS was 7.1 ± 0.3. Upon follow-up 2.1 ± 0.2 years after HM, GSS declined to 1.9 ± 0.4 (p < 0.001), with surgical satisfaction score of 8.7 ± 0.3 out of 10; these were similar across achalasia subtypes. On univariate analysis, female gender, Eckardt score, severity of transit symptoms, and maximal IRP predicted linear GSS improvement; female gender (p = 0.003) and dysphagia for liquids (p = 0.043) remained predictive on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

When a uniform surgical approach is utilized, symptomatic outcome and satisfaction with therapy are similar across achalasia subtypes. Female gender and severity of dysphagia for solids may predict better HM outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Vela MF. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1238–49 (quiz 1250).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hirano I, Tatum RP, Shi G, et al. Manometric heterogeneity in patients with idiopathic achalasia. Gastroenterology. 2001;120:789–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Todorczuk JR, Aliperti G, Staiano A, et al. Reevaluation of manometric criteria for vigorous achalasia. Is this a distinct clinical disorder? Dig Dis Sci. 1991;36:274–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clouse RE, Staiano A, Alrakawi A, et al. Application of topographical methods to clinical esophageal manometry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2720–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pandolfino JE, Kwiatek MA, Nealis T, et al. Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1526–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rohof WO, Salvador R, Annese V, et al. Outcomes of treatment for achalasia depend on manometric subtype. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:718–25 (quiz e13–4).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boeckxstaens GE, Annese V, desVarannes SB, et al. Pneumatic dilation versus laparoscopic Heller’s myotomy for idiopathic achalasia. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1807–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Greene CL, Chang EJ, Oh DS, et al. High resolution manometry sub-classification of Achalasia: does it really matter? Does Achalasia sub-classification matter? Surg Endosc. 2015;29:1363–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Kahrilas PJ, et al. Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24(Suppl 1):57–65.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Acid-based parameters on pH-impedance testing predict symptom improvement with medical management better than impedance parameters. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:836–44.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reidel WL, Clouse RE. Variations in clinical presentation of patients with esophageal contraction abnormalities. Dig Dis Sci. 1985;30:1065–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kushnir VM, Gyawali CP. High resolution manometry patterns distinguish acid sensitivity in non-cardiac chest pain. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;23:1066–72.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel A, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Parameters on esophageal pH impedance monitoring that predict outcomes of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:884–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Porter RF, Gyawali CP. Botulinum toxin injection in dysphagia syndromes with preserved esophageal peristalsis and incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;23:139–44 (e27–8).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gyawali CP, Kushnir VM. High-resolution manometric characteristics help differentiate types of distal esophageal obstruction in patients with peristalsis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;23:502–e197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kushnir V, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Multiple rapid swallow responses segregate achalasia subtypes on high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:1069–e561.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kushnir VM, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Abnormal GERD parameters on ambulatory pH monitoring predict therapeutic success in noncardiac chest pain. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1032–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eckardt AJ, Eckardt VF. Treatment and surveillance strategies in achalasia: an update. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;8:311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pratap N, Kalapala R, Darisetty S, et al. Achalasia cardia subtyping by high-resolution manometry predicts the therapeutic outcome of pneumatic balloon dilatation. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;17:48–53.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roman S, Kahrilas PJ, Mion F, et al. Partial recovery of peristalsis after myotomy for achalasia: more the rule than the exception. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:157–64.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hong SJ, Bhargava V, Jiang Y, et al. A unique esophageal motor pattern that involves longitudinal muscles is responsible for emptying in achalasia esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:102–11.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roman S, Zerbib F, Queneherve L, et al. The Chicago classification for achalasia in a French multicentric cohort. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44:976–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kahrilas PJ, Boeckxstaens G. The spectrum of achalasia: lessons from studies of pathophysiology and high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:954–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27:160–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No funding or writing assistance was obtained.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8124, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Amit Patel, Ami Patel, Faiz A. Mirza, Samad Soudagar, Gregory S. Sayuk & C. Prakash Gyawali

Authors
  1. Amit Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ami Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Faiz A. Mirza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samad Soudagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory S. Sayuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Prakash Gyawali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Prakash Gyawali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, A., Patel, A., Mirza, F.A. et al. Achalasia symptom response after Heller myotomy segregated by high-resolution manometry subtypes. J Gastroenterol 51, 112–118 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-015-1088-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-015-1088-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation