Lee Tae Hee, Lee Joon Seong, Hong Su Jin, Lee Ji Sung, Jeon Seong Ran, Kim Wan Jung, Kim Hyun Gun, Cho Joo Young, Kim Jin Oh, Cho Jun Hyung, Park Won Young, Park Ji Woong, Lee Yang Gyun
Institute for Digestive Research, Digestive Disease Center, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Turk J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct;25(5):473-80. doi: 10.5152/tjg.2014.8021.
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.
One hundred and fifty three subjects (78 males, mean age 68.6 years, range 26-97) 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).
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 0.148-0.413) 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.
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.
背景/目的:目前,高分辨率测压法(HRM)的自动化分析可提供食管上括约肌(UES)松弛参数的详细信息。本研究旨在评估UES松弛参数自动分析的准确性。
153名受试者(78名男性,平均年龄68.6岁,范围26 - 97岁)接受了HRM检查。UES松弛参数由两名专家进行了两次解读,一次是直观解读(V),另一次是使用ManoView ESO分析软件进行自动解读(AS)。使用Bland - Altman图和Lin一致性相关系数(CCC)评估两种分析方法之间的一致性。
对于基础UES压力(CCC 0.996;95%置信区间(CI)0.994 - 0.997)和残余UES压力(CCC 0.918;95% CI 0.895 - 0.936),V分析和AS分析之间的一致性良好至极佳。对于UES松弛最低点时间(CCC 0.208;95% CI 0.068 - 0.339)和UES松弛持续时间(CCC 0.286;95% CI 0.148 - 0.413),V分析和AS分析之间的一致性较差。对于UES松弛恢复时间(CCC 0.522;95% CI 0.397 - 0.627)和咽部峰值压力(CCC 0.695;95% CI 0.605 - 0.767),V分析和AS分析之间存在中等程度的一致性。
AS分析不可靠,尤其是在UES松弛的时间变量方面。由于V分析和AS分析在咽食管功能障碍的临床解读上存在差异,使用直观分析是合理的。