We have located links that may give you full text access.
Optimal number of multiple rapid swallows needed during high-resolution esophageal manometry for accurate prediction of contraction reserve.
BACKGROUND: Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative test for assessment of contraction reserve, however reproducibility on repetitive MRS is incompletely understood. Our aim was to determine the optimal number of MRS sequences for consistent assessment of contraction reserve.
METHODS: One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients (79 IEM and 80 normal motility) who underwent high-resolution manometers were enrolled. Ten single swallows (SS) and 10 MRS were performed. Gold standard for evaluation of the contraction reserve was the ratio between the mean DCI of 10 MRS and the mean DCI of 10 SS (MRS/SS DCI ratio). Rates of false negatives and false positives were calculated for increasing numbers of MRS sequences, using either mean DCI or the MRS with the highest DCI.
KEY RESULTS: According to the gold standard, 50 IEM and 50 normal motility patients had contraction reserve. With progressively increasing numbers of MRS sequences, contraction reserve was detected using mean MRS DCI within three and four MRS sequences in IEM and normal motility respectively, whereas two and three MRS sequences were needed using the MRS sequence with the highest DCI. False positives were much higher with highest DCI method compared with mean DCI, (22% vs 9% respectively in IEM; 24% vs 9% in normal motility) when three MRS sequences were considered.
CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: At least three MRS are needed to reliably assess contraction reserve. The mean DCI of the three MRS sequences is the best variable to utilize as evidence of contraction reserve.
METHODS: One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients (79 IEM and 80 normal motility) who underwent high-resolution manometers were enrolled. Ten single swallows (SS) and 10 MRS were performed. Gold standard for evaluation of the contraction reserve was the ratio between the mean DCI of 10 MRS and the mean DCI of 10 SS (MRS/SS DCI ratio). Rates of false negatives and false positives were calculated for increasing numbers of MRS sequences, using either mean DCI or the MRS with the highest DCI.
KEY RESULTS: According to the gold standard, 50 IEM and 50 normal motility patients had contraction reserve. With progressively increasing numbers of MRS sequences, contraction reserve was detected using mean MRS DCI within three and four MRS sequences in IEM and normal motility respectively, whereas two and three MRS sequences were needed using the MRS sequence with the highest DCI. False positives were much higher with highest DCI method compared with mean DCI, (22% vs 9% respectively in IEM; 24% vs 9% in normal motility) when three MRS sequences were considered.
CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: At least three MRS are needed to reliably assess contraction reserve. The mean DCI of the three MRS sequences is the best variable to utilize as evidence of contraction reserve.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app