Abstract
Background
Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is defined as a distal contractile integral < 450 mmHg/s/cm in at least 50% of ten liquid swallows on high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM). Whether this latest definition correlates with degree of symptoms has not been studied.
Methods
Patients presenting for HREM prospectively rated their symptoms using the Eckardt score. Topography plots were retrospectively reviewed and classified according to the latest Chicago Classification. Patients with non-obstructive dysphagia and an Eckardt score of at least 1 were included. Patients with major motility disorders were excluded. Scores between patients with IEM (group A) and patients with normal classification (group B) were compared using two-tailed t-tests. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was calculated to determine correlation between symptoms and percent bolus clearance.
Results
A total of 241 patients were screened; 33 patients met criteria for group A and 44 patients for group B. There was no difference between the two groups in mean symptom severity for dysphagia (1.63 vs. 1.61, P = 0.89), chest pain (0.67 vs. 0.75, P = 0.64), regurgitation (1.06 vs. 0.85, P = 0.32), or weight loss (0.85 vs. 0.49, P = 0.11). The percent bolus clearance was significantly lower in group A (46.5% vs. 76.7%, P > 0.01). There was a moderate inverse correlation between dysphagia and percent bolus clearance (R = − 0.37) in group A, but none in group B (R = 0.09).
Conclusion
The classification of IEM did not discriminate from normal studies for symptom severity in our cohort. However, patients with IEM did have an inverse correlation between dysphagia score and bolus clearance, but those without IEM did not. Adding impedance information to the motor pattern classification should be considered in the symptom assessment in minor motility disorders.


Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27:160–174.
Kessing BF, Smout AJ, Bredenoord AJ. Clinical Applications of Esophageal Impedance Monitoring and High-Resolution Manometry. Curr Gastroenterology Reports. 2012;14:197–205.
Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Kahrilas PJ, Pandolfino JE, Schwizer W, Smout AJ. Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:57–65.
Leite LP, Johnston BT, Barrett J, Castell JA, Castell DO. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM): the primary finding in patients with nonspecific esophageal motility disorder. Dig Dis Sci. 1997;42:1859–1865. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018802908358.
Spechler SJ, Castell DO. Classification of oesophageal motility abnormalities. Gut. 2001;49:145–151.
Blonski W, Vela M, Safder Hila A, Castell DO. Revised criterion for diagnosis of ineffective esophageal motility is associated with more frequent dysphagia and greater bolus transit abnormalities. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:699–704.
Abdel Jalil AA, Castell DO. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM): the old-new Frontier in esophagology. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18:1.
Xiao Y, Kahrilas PJ, Kwasny MJ, Roman S, et al. High-resolution manometry correlates of ineffective esophageal motility. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1647–1654.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare that they do not have conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chugh, P., Collazo, T., Dworkin, B. et al. Ineffective Esophageal Motility Is Associated with Impaired Bolus Clearance but Does Not Correlate with Severity of Dysphagia. Dig Dis Sci 64, 811–814 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-018-5384-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-018-5384-x

