SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2014 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 5

High-resolution manometry: Reliability of automated analysis of upper esophageal sphincter relaxation parameters ESOPHAGUS

Lee Tae HEE
Lee Joon SEONG
Hong Su JİN
Lee Ji SUNG
Jeon Seong RAN
Kim Wan JUNG
Kim Hyun GUN
Cho Joo YOUNG
Kim JİN-OH
Cho JUN-HYUNG
Park Won YOUNG
Park Ji WOONG
Lee Yang GYUN
Pages
473–480
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Due to the difference in the clinical interpretation of pharyngoesophageal dysfunction between V and AS analysis, the use of visual analysis is justified.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: At present, automated analysis of high-resolution manometry (HRM) provides details of upper esophageal sphincter (UES) relaxation parameters.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: The agreement between V and AS analyses of basal UES pressure (CCC 0.996; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.994-0.997) and residual UES pressure (CCC 0.918; 95% CI 0.895-0.936) was good to excellent.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Due to the difference in the clinical interpretation of pharyngoesophageal dysfunction between V and AS analysis, the use of visual analysis is justified.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: At present, automated analysis of high-resolution manometry (HRM) provides details of upper esophageal sphincter (UES) relaxation parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of automatic analysis of UES relaxation parameters.Materials and Methods: One hundred and fifty three subjects underwent HRM. UES relaxation parameters were interpreted twice, once visually (V) by two experts and once automatically (AS) using the ManoView ESO analysis software. Agreement between the two analysis methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results: The agreement between V and AS analyses of basal UES pressure (CCC 0.996; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.994-0.997) and residual UES pressure (CCC 0.918; 95% CI 0.895-0.936) was good to excellent. Agreement for time to UES relaxation nadir (CCC 0.208; 95% CI 0.068-0.339) and UES relaxation duration (CCC 0.286; 95% CI 0.1480.413) between V and AS analyses was poor. There was moderate agreement for recovery time of UES relaxation (CCC 0.522; 95% CI 0.397-0.627) and peak pharyngeal pressure (CCC 0.695; 95% CI 0.605-0.767) between V and AS analysis. Conclusion: AS analysis was unreliable, especially regarding the time variables of UES relaxation. Due to the difference in the clinical interpretation of pharyngoesophageal dysfunction between V and AS analysis, the use of visual analysis is justified.

🔖

Cite This Article

HEE, L. T., SEONG, L. J., JİN, H. S., SUNG, L. J., RAN, J. S., JUNG, K. W., GUN, K. H., YOUNG, C. J., JİN-OH, K., JUN-HYUNG, C., YOUNG, P. W., WOONG, P. J., GYUN, L. Y. (2014). High-resolution manometry: Reliability of automated analysis of upper esophageal sphincter relaxation parameters ESOPHAGUS. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 5, 473–480. https://ajindex.com/articles/411086

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Guyomard V, Fulcher RA, Redmayne O, Metcalf AK, Potter JF, Myint PK. Effect of dysphasia and dysphagia on inpatient mortality and hospital length of stay: a database study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57: 2101-6.
  2. Martin BJ, Corlew MM, Wood H, et al. The association of swallow- ing dysfunction and aspiration pneumonia. Dysphagia 1994; 9: 1-6.
  3. Cook IJ, Kahrilas PJ. AGA technical review on management of oro- pharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology 1999; 116: 455-78.
  4. Kuhlemeier KV, Yates P, Palmer JB. Intra- and interrater variation in the evaluation of videofluorographic swallowing studies. Dys- phagia 1998; 13: 142-7.
  5. Fox MR, Bredenoord AJ. Oesophageal high-resolution manom- etry: moving from research into clinical practice. Gut 2008; 57: 405-23.
  6. Lee TH, Lee JS, Park JW, et al. High-resolution impedance manom- etry facilitates assessment of pharyngeal residue and oropharyn- geal dysphagic mechanisms. Dis Esophagus 2014; 27: 220-9.
  7. Lee TH, Lee JS, Kim WJ. High resolution impedance manometric findings in dysphagia of Huntington's disease. World J Gastroen- terol 2012; 18: 1695-9.
  8. Lee TH, Lee JS. High-resolution manometry for oropharyngeal dysphagia in a patient with large cervical osteophytes. J Neuro- gastroenterol Motil 2012; 18: 338-9.
  9. Omari TI, Dejaeger E, van Beckevoort D, et al. A method to ob- jectively assess swallow function in adults with suspected aspira- tion. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1454-63.
  10. Omari TI, Ferris L, Dejaeger E, Tack J, Vanbeckevoort D, Rommel N. Upper esophageal sphincter impedance as a marker of sphincter opening diameter. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012; 302: G909-13. Noh EJ, Park MI, Park SJ, et al. A case of amyotrophic lateral sclero- sis presented as oropharyngeal Dysphagia. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010; 16: 319-22.
  11. Mielens JD, Hoffman MR, Ciucci MR, Jiang JJ, McCulloch TM. Auto- mated analysis of pharyngeal pressure data obtained with high- resolution manometry. Dysphagia 2011; 26: 3-12.
  12. Umeki H, Takasaki K, Enatsu K, Tanaka F, Kumagami H, Takahashi H. Effects of a tongue-holding maneuver during swallowing evalu- ated by high-resolution manometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 141: 119-22.
  13. Takasaki K, Umeki H, Enatsu K, et al. Investigation of pharyngeal swallowing function using high-resolution manometry. Laryngo- scope 2008; 118: 1729-32.
  14. Pal A, Williams RB, Cook IJ, Brasseur JG. Intrabolus pressure gradi- ent identifies pathological constriction in the upper esophageal sphincter during flow. Am J Physiol Gast