High‐resolution impedance manometry parameters enhance the esophageal motility evaluation in non‐obstructive dysphagia patients without a major Chicago Classification motility disorder

Background High‐resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) allows evaluation of esophageal bolus retention, flow, and pressurization. We aimed to perform a collaborative analysis of HRIM metrics to evaluate patients with non‐obstructive dysphagia. Methods Fourteen asymptomatic controls (58% female; ages 20–50) and 41 patients (63% female; ages 24–82), 18 evaluated for dysphagia and 23 for reflux (non‐dysphagia patients), with esophageal motility diagnoses of normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility, were evaluated with HRIM and a global dysphagia symptom score (Brief Esophageal Dysphagia Questionnaire). HRIM was analyzed to assess Chicago Classification metrics, automated pressure‐flow metrics, the esophageal impedance integral (EII) ratio, and the bolus flow time (BFT). Key Results Significant symptom‐metric correlations were detected only with basal EGJ pressure, EII ratio, and BFT. The EII ratio, BFT, and impedance ratio differed between controls and dysphagia patients, while the EII ratio in the upright position was the only measure that differentiated dysphagia from non‐dysphagia patients. Conclusions & Inferences The EII ratio and BFT appear to offer an improved diagnostic evaluation in patients with non‐obstructive dysphagia without a major esophageal motility disorder. Bolus retention as measured with the EII ratio appears to carry the strongest association with dysphagia, and thus may aid in the characterization of symptomatic patients with otherwise normal manometry. We aimed to perform a collaborative analysis of high‐resolution impedance manometry metrics to evaluate patients without non‐obstructive dysphagia with a major esophageal motility disorder. The esophageal impedance integral (EII) ratio and bolus flow time demonstrated the strongest symptom correlations and differed between dysphagia patients and asymptomatic controls. The EII ratio also differed between dysphagia and non‐dysphagia patient–controls, suggesting it may aid characterization of symptomatic patients with otherwise non‐diagnostic manometry.