Faculty Bibliography

The functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) measures luminal dimensions using impedance planimetry, performed most often during sedated upper endoscopy. Mechanical properties of the esophageal wall and opening dynamics of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) can be objectively evaluated in esophageal motor disorders, eosinophilic esophagitis, esophageal strictures, during esophageal surgery and in postsurgical symptomatic states. Distensibility index, the ratio of EGJ cross sectional area to intraballoon pressure, is the most useful FLIP metric. Secondary peristalsis from balloon distension can be displayed topographically as repetitive anterograde or retrograde contractile activity in the esophageal body, similar to high-resolution manometry. Real-time interpretation and postprocessing of FLIP metadata can complement the identification of esophageal outflow obstruction and achalasia, especially when findings are inconclusive from alternate esophageal tests in symptomatic patients. FLIP can complement the diagnosis of achalasia when manometry and barium studies are inconclusive or negative in patients with typical symptoms. FLIP can direct adequacy of disruption of the EGJ in achalasia when used during and immediately after myotomy and pneumatic dilation. Lumen diameter measured using FLIP in eosinophilic esophagitis and in complex strictures can potentially guide management. An abbreviated modification of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to determine the quality of available evidence and recommendations regarding FLIP utilization. FLIP metrics that are diagnostic or suggestive of an abnormal motor pattern and metrics that define normal esophageal physiology were developed by consensus and are described in this review.

INTRODUCTION: Multi-society recommendations state, "Given the importance of polyp size for informing surveillance intervals, documentation of a polyp > 10 mm within a report should be accompanied by an endoscopic photo of the polyp with comparison to an open snare or open biopsy forceps".¹ We evaluate the feasibility of the Napoleon, an endoscopically-deployed small ruler to more accurately measure and document the size of colon polyps.
METHOD(S): The Micro-Tech Endoscopic Gauge (Non-FDA approved) named Napoleon, a catheter with a 15 mm ruler calibrated in 1 mm intervals with demarcations every 5 MM, was advanced through the biopsy channel of a colonoscope and positioned adjacent to a polyp to accurately measure polyp size (Image 1). Polyps sizes were first assessed visually and then measured using the Napoleon. Patients included were 50 to 85 years of age and undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Napoleon placement, extension/retraction, and photograph acquisition were evaluated on a 1-s10 scale (1 = Easy, 10 = Difficult).
RESULT(S): 23 patients were evaluated by 6 physicians. A total of 36 polyps were found. Each score represents the average of several polyps if more than one polyp was identified per patient (Table 1). The most polyps found in any patient was 3. Each polyp size was placed into 1 of 3 categories (Table 2): 1-5 mm (Diminutive), 6-9 mm (Small) and $ 10 mm (Large). 30 of the 36 total polyps (83%) were diminutive. 3 polyps were downgraded into the next smaller size category after measurement with the Napoleon - specifically, 1 polyp (33%) dropped from small to diminutive size and 2 polyps (67%) dropped from large to small size.
CONCLUSION(S): Prior studies on polyp size have shown that visual assessment is inaccurate.² This study demonstrates the ease and feasibility of the Napoleon as an endoscopic measuring device. The majority of polyps found were diminutive (1-5 mm) and explains why there is such a minute difference noted in the weighted mean polyp size (0.28 mm). Of the 3 polyps that were visually assessed to be $ 10 mm, 2 of those polyps (67%) were measured to be < 10 mm, changing recommended surveillance from 3 years to 7-10 years.¹ Further studies utilizing an endoscopic measuring tool such as the Napoleon are needed to evaluate the effect of accurate polyp measurement on our clinical management, training, and colonoscopy surveillance intervals

The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Task Force recommends that gastrointestinal motility procedures should be performed in motility laboratories adhering to the strict recommendations and personal protective equipment (PPE) measures to protect patients, ancillary staff, and motility allied health professionals. When available and within constraints of institutional guidelines, it is preferable for patients scheduled for motility procedures to complete a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test within 48 hours before their procedure, similar to the recommendations before endoscopy made by gastroenterology societies. COVID-19 test results must be documented before performing procedures. If procedures are to be performed without a COVID-19 test, full PPE use is recommended, along with all social distancing and infection control measures. Because patients with suspected motility disorders may require multiple procedures, sequential scheduling of procedures should be considered to minimize need for repeat COVID-19 testing. The strategies for and timing of procedure(s) should be adapted, taking into consideration local institutional standards, with the provision for screening without testing in low prevalence areas. If tested positive for COVID-19, subsequent negative testing may be required before scheduling a motility procedure (timing is variable). Specific recommendations for each motility procedure including triaging, indications, PPE use, and alternatives to motility procedures are detailed in the document. These recommendations may evolve as understanding of virus transmission and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in the community changes over the upcoming months.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal food impaction (EFI) is a common initial presentation of eo-sinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Patients presenting with EFI requiring endoscopic intervention present an opportunity to obtain esophageal biopsies to evaluate for EoE and optimize diagnostic yield before initiation of empiric treatment. We aimed to evaluate practices of esophageal biopsy at time of EFI at our institution and identify missed opportunities to diagnose EoE.
METHOD(S): We performed a single center retrospective chart review on a subset of adult patients from 10/2015 -1/2020 who presented to NYU Langone Health with EFI. Patients who underwent upper endoscopy (EGD) and were found to have a retained esophageal food bolus were included. Those with prior diagnosis of EoE were excluded. Proportions were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, and rank sum tests were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with subsequent need for diagnostic EGD.
RESULT(S): 123 patients with EFI were reviewed, 50 (40.7%) were biopsied at the time of EGD (Table 1). Among those biopsied, a new diagnosis of EoE was found in 52%. Of the patients who did not undergo biopsy at index EGD, 23% underwent repeat EGD at our institution and were found to have a new EoE diagnosis. Biopsies performed during EGD for EFI did appear to decrease the need for repeat procedure (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-1.63), although not statistically significant. Patients with furrows were more likely to be biopsied however the report of other classic endoscopic features of EoE (such as exudates, ring, stricture, edema), was not significantly associated with the rate of biopsy (Table 2). Time of procedure and history of prior EFI also did not appear to influence rate of biopsy.
CONCLUSION(S): Biopsy at the time of EFI is important to obtain a timely diagnosis of EoE. At our center, less than half of patients were biopsied at time of initial EGD for EFI, and over half of those biopsied were diagnosed with EoE. The diagnosis of EoE was missed in 23% patients who were not biopsied at time of EFI, and on subsequent EGD with biopsy were found to have EoE. This delay in biopsy likely leads to unnecessary EGDs and more patients who are unaware of their diagnosis. Future educational initiatives aimed at GI providers are needed to improve rates of biopsies during initial EGD for EFI to reduce the need for additional diagnostic procedures

INTRODUCTION: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) has clinical overlap with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and is diagnosed either by endoscopic small bowel aspiration (SBA) with quantitative bacterial culture or hydrogen breath testing (BT). SBA is invasive and lacks standardization and BT has questionable accuracy and unreliable performance.
METHOD(S): Qualitative phone interviews with 7 GIs/3 IBS experts explored unmet needs in SIBO diagnosis and gathered feedback on a novel smart capsule bacterial detection system (SCBDS)^-an ingestible capsule with an integrated assay for wirelessly determining small intestinal total bacterial count based on an FDA-approved threshold of $10⁵ CFU/ml. A quantitative online survey of 28 academic and 62 community GIs assessed practice patterns and preferred clinical characteristics of SCBDS.
RESULT(S): GIs saw 77 IBS and 22 SIBO patients on average per month. Suspected SIBO patients (36%) were formally diagnosed by BT with academic GIs placing a greater importance on a formal diagnosis rather than empiric antibiotic therapy. 10% of practices performed SBA for SIBO diagnosis (Figure 1). SIBO diagnosis was evaluated by BT in 47% of patients with only a fraction of GIs giving high ratings for BT accuracy. Empiric antibiotic therapy was performed in ;50% of suspected SIBO patients across both settings, but 91% were at least somewhat concerned with this practice and 60% were unsatisfied with all current diagnostic options (Figure 2). Insufficient accuracy was the most frequently selected diagnostic unmet need, with 58% of GIs selecting it as one of the greatest unmet needs, followed by difficulty in interpreting results (48%) (Figure 3). Over 70% of GIs indicated that SCBDS would be more accurate than BT and would recommend it to almost two-thirds of patients evaluated for SIBO and to one-third for IBS. Two-thirds of GIs also anticipated using SCBDS first over empiric antibiotic therapy alone. In addition, 59% of BT users and 66% performing SBA would replace these methods with SCBDS.
CONCLUSION(S): GIs in both community and academic settings expressed a significant unmet need in SIBO diagnosis driven by BT performance limitations, and only a small minority of GIs were performing SBA to diagnose SIBO. A perceived strength of an FDA-approved SCBDS would be improved accuracy, interpretation and precision as compared to BT, with the majority of GIs suggesting they would replace conventional SIBO diagnostics with such a technology

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiectasis is a common chronic pulmonary condition characterized by inflammation and recurrent infections. There is evidence that gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is associated with bronchiectasis and can increase the severity of pulmonary disease. Data regarding esophageal function in this population is sparse. We aimed to assess whether patients with bronchiectasis have an increased prevalence of esophageal motility disturbances and GERD.
METHOD(S): We conducted a single-center matched cohort study of all adult patients with confirmed bronchiectasis who underwent esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 11/ 2014-3/2018. All cases were randomly matched with a control by age (65 years) and sex. Chicago Classification 3.0 was used to characterize HRM findings. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (pH-MII) was utilized to assess reflux burden. Statistical relationships between proportions were evaluated by Chi-square or Fisher's exact test and continuous variables were compared using t-test or rank sum test.
RESULT(S): 63 bronchiectasis patients underwent HRM, of which 54 underwent pH-MII. Of the controls, 63 underwent HRM, of which 39 underwent pH-MII. Baseline characteristics between cases and controls were similar. Mean age of bronchiectasis patients was 65 (SD 12.73), mean body mass index was 25.51 (SD 8.50), 70% were female, and 48% had a smoking history (Table). HRM did not demonstrate any significant differences between cases and controls. pH-MII trended towards a greater reflux burden among controls. However, nearly half of cases had conclusive evidence of pathologic reflux by esophageal acid exposure on pH-MII. On endoscopy, no significant differences were noted.
CONCLUSION(S): Esophageal motility and acid exposure did not significantly differ among patients with bronchiectasis and controls, which may indicate that esophageal physiology in bronchiectasis is not unique. Nevertheless, more than half of the bronchiectasis group had evidence of abnormal esophageal motility and almost half of patients had conclusive evidence of pathologic reflux. Small differences are likely due to the high prevalence of GERD and associated motility disorders in the control group. Larger studies are warranted to further characterize esophageal physiology in these patients and the potential impact on pulmonary pathology. (Table Presented)

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Competency-based medical education (CBME) for interpretation of esophageal manometry is lacking; therefore, motility experts and instructional designers developed the esophageal manometry competency (EMC) program: a personalized, adaptive learning program for interpretation of esophageal manometry. The aim of this study was to implement EMC among Gastroenterology (GI) trainees and assess the impact of EMC on competency in manometry interpretation. METHODS:GI fellows across 14 fellowship programs were invited to complete EMC from February 2018 to October 2018. EMC includes an introductory video, baseline assessment of manometry interpretation, individualized learning pathways, and final assessment of manometry interpretation. The primary outcome was competency for interpretation in 7 individual skill sets. RESULTS:Forty-four GI trainees completed EMC. Participants completed 30 cases, each including 7 skill sets. At baseline, 4 (9%) participants achieved competency for all 7 skills compared with 24 (55%) at final assessment (P < 0.001). Competency in individual skills increased from a median of 4 skills at baseline to 7 at final assessment (P < 0.001). The greatest increase in skill competency was for diagnosis (Baseline: 11% vs Final: 68%; P < 0.001). Accuracy improved for distinguishing between 5 diagnostic groups and was highest for the Outflow obstructive motility disorder (Baseline: 49% vs Final: 76%; P < 0.001) and Normal motor function (50% vs 80%; P < 0.001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This prospective multicenter implementation study highlights that an adaptive web-based training platform is an effective tool to promote CBME. EMC completion was associated with significant improvement in identifying clinically relevant diagnoses, providing a model for integrating CBME into subspecialized areas of training.