Suppr超能文献

食管动力障碍的诊断:食管压力地形图与传统线性描记法对比

Diagnosis of Esophageal Motility Disorders: Esophageal Pressure Topography vs. Conventional Line Tracing.

作者信息

Carlson Dustin A, Ravi Karthik, Kahrilas Peter J, Gyawali C Prakash, Bredenoord Arjan J, Castell Donald O, Spechler Stuart J, Halland Magnus, Kanuri Navya, Katzka David A, Leggett Cadman L, Roman Sabine, Saenz Jose B, Sayuk Gregory S, Wong Alan C, Yadlapati Rena, Ciolino Jody D, Fox Mark R, Pandolfino John E

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Division of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

出版信息

Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110(7):967-77; quiz 978. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.159. Epub 2015 Jun 2.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Enhanced characterization of esophageal peristaltic and sphincter function provided by esophageal pressure topography (EPT) offers a potential diagnostic advantage over conventional line tracings (CLT). However, high-resolution manometry (HRM) and EPT require increased equipment costs over conventional systems and evidence demonstrating a significant diagnostic advantage of EPT over CLT is limited. Our aim was to investigate whether the inter-rater agreement and/or accuracy of esophageal motility diagnosis differed between EPT and CLT.

METHODS

Forty previously completed patient HRM studies were selected for analysis using a customized software program developed to perform blinded independent interpretation in either EPT or CLT (six pressure sensors) format. Six experienced gastroenterologists with a clinical focus in esophageal disease (attendings) and six gastroenterology trainees with minimal manometry experience (fellows) from three academic centers interpreted each of the 40 studies using both EPT and CLT formats. Rater diagnoses were assessed for inter-rater agreement and diagnostic accuracy, both for exact diagnosis and for correct identification of a major esophageal motility disorder.

RESULTS

The total group agreement was moderate (κ=0.57; 95% CI: 0.56-0.59) for EPT and fair (κ=0.32; 0.30-0.33) for CLT. Inter-rater agreement between attendings was good (κ=0.68; 0.65-0.71) for EPT and moderate (κ=0.46; 0.43-0.50) for CLT. Inter-rater agreement between fellows was moderate (κ=0.48; 0.45-0.50) for EPT and poor to fair (κ=0.20; 0.17-0.24) for CLT. Among all raters, the odds of an incorrect exact esophageal motility diagnosis were 3.3 times higher with CLT assessment than with EPT (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 2.4-4.5; P<0.0001), and the odds of incorrect identification of a major motility disorder were 3.4 times higher with CLT than with EPT (OR: 3.4; 2.4-5.0; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Superior inter-rater agreement and diagnostic accuracy of esophageal motility diagnoses were demonstrated with analysis using EPT over CLT among our selected raters. On the basis of these findings, EPT may be the preferred assessment modality of esophageal motility.

摘要

目的

食管压力地形图(EPT)对食管蠕动和括约肌功能的增强表征,相较于传统的线性描记法(CLT)具有潜在的诊断优势。然而,高分辨率测压法(HRM)和EPT相较于传统系统需要更高的设备成本,且证明EPT比CLT具有显著诊断优势的证据有限。我们的目的是研究EPT和CLT之间的评分者间一致性和/或食管动力诊断准确性是否存在差异。

方法

选择40项先前完成的患者HRM研究,使用定制的软件程序进行分析,该软件程序开发用于以EPT或CLT(六个压力传感器)格式进行盲法独立解读。来自三个学术中心的六名专注于食管疾病的经验丰富的胃肠病学家(主治医师)和六名测压经验最少的胃肠病学实习生(住院医师),使用EPT和CLT两种格式对40项研究中的每一项进行解读。评估评分者的诊断在评分者间一致性和诊断准确性方面的表现,包括准确诊断和正确识别主要食管动力障碍。

结果

EPT的总体组间一致性为中等(κ = 0.57;95% CI:0.56 - 0.59),CLT为一般(κ = 0.32;0.30 - 0.33)。主治医师之间EPT的评分者间一致性良好(κ = 0.68;0.65 - 0.71),CLT为中等(κ = 0.46;0.43 - 0.50)。住院医师之间EPT的评分者间一致性为中等(κ = 0.48;0.45 - 0.50),CLT为差到一般(κ = 0.20;0.17 - 0.24)。在所有评分者中,CLT评估时食管动力准确诊断错误的几率比EPT高3.3倍(OR:3.3;95% CI:2.4 - 4.5;P < 0.0001),CLT识别主要动力障碍错误的几率比EPT高3.4倍(OR:3.4;2.4 - 5.0;P < 0.0001)。

结论

在我们选定的评分者中,使用EPT分析相较于CLT,食管动力诊断具有更高的评分者间一致性和诊断准确性。基于这些发现,EPT可能是食管动力评估的首选方式。

相似文献

3
High-resolution manometry correlates of ineffective esophageal motility.高分辨率测压与无效食管动力的相关性。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov;107(11):1647-54. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.286. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
5

引用本文的文献

4
Achalasia.贲门失弛缓症。
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022 May 5;8(1):28. doi: 10.1038/s41572-022-00356-8.
5
Esophageal Achalasia: Diagnostic Evaluation.食管失弛缓症:诊断评估。
World J Surg. 2022 Jul;46(7):1516-1521. doi: 10.1007/s00268-022-06483-3. Epub 2022 Feb 23.
6
A Short History of High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry.高分辨率食管测压的简史。
Dysphagia. 2023 Apr;38(2):586-595. doi: 10.1007/s00455-021-10372-7. Epub 2021 Nov 5.
7
Dysphagia: Novel and Emerging Diagnostic Modalities.吞咽困难:新的和新兴的诊断方式。
Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2021 Dec;50(4):769-790. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2021.07.003. Epub 2021 Oct 6.

本文引用的文献

1
The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0.《芝加哥食管动力障碍分类,第3.0版》
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015 Feb;27(2):160-74. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12477. Epub 2014 Dec 3.
3
ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of achalasia.ACG 临床指南:贲门失弛缓症的诊断和治疗。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug;108(8):1238-49; quiz 1250. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.196. Epub 2013 Jul 23.
4
Outcomes of treatment for achalasia depend on manometric subtype.贲门失弛缓症的治疗结果取决于测压亚型。
Gastroenterology. 2013 Apr;144(4):718-25; quiz e13-4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.12.027. Epub 2012 Dec 28.
5
High-resolution manometry correlates of ineffective esophageal motility.高分辨率测压与无效食管动力的相关性。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Nov;107(11):1647-54. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.286. Epub 2012 Aug 28.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验