Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to evaluate whether the water siphon maneuver improves detection of gastroesophageal (GE) reflux during barium esophagography compared with observation for spontaneous reflux only. Histopathologic analysis is the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This retrospective study assessed 87 outpatients who underwent both barium esophagography and upper endoscopy-guided biopsy within a 30-day interval. The water siphon maneuver was routinely performed when spontaneous GE reflux was not observed during the fluoroscopic study. Radiology reports were reviewed for mentions of the presence of reflux and the circumstances in which it was observed (as a spontaneous occurrence or as a result of the water siphon maneuver). Pathology reports from subsequent endoscopic biopsies were reviewed to identify histologic changes of reflux disease. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of esophagography, observation for spontaneous reflux, and the water siphon maneuver were calculated and then compared using a McNemar test. RESULTS:Of the 87 patients, 57 (65.5%) had GE reflux diagnosed on the basis of histologic changes noted on endoscopy, and 30 (34.5%) did not. A total of 57 patients (65.5%) showed reflux during esophagography, 41 (71.9%) of whom had reflux diagnosed by the water siphon maneuver, and 16 (28.1%) had reflux diagnosed on the basis of observation of spontaneous reflux. Forty-four patients had reflux diagnosed on the basis of both a barium study and histologic findings; 13 patients had reflux noted on esophagography but had negative histologic findings. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of esophagography for reflux were 77.2%, 56.7%, and 70.1%, respectively. Spontaneous reflux alone had a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 21.1%, 86.7%, and 43.7%, respectively. The water siphon maneuver showed a sensitivity of 71.1%, a specificity of 65.4%, and accuracy of 69.0%. The differences in the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the water siphon maneuver versus observation of spontaneous reflux were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.004). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A properly performed and interpreted water siphon maneuver significantly increases the sensitivity and accuracy for GE reflux during esophagography, compared with observation for spontaneous reflux alone. The water siphon maneuver is a simple addition to barium esophagography that improves sensitivity and accuracy for the diagnosis of GE reflux compared with observation alone.

Barrett esophagus (BE) is the precursor lesion to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The current surveillance strategy of 4-quadrant Seattle protocol biopsies has been associated with sampling error and missing higher-risk lesions, and there is often less adherence to endoscopic surveillance with long segments. Advancements in endoscopic imaging and sampling techniques allow for better surveillance of BE, particularly when assessing for dysplasia. This article highlights the key endoscopic imaging and sampling advancements in the evaluation of dysplasia in BE.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Esophageal function testing is being increasingly utilized in diagnosis and management of esophageal disorders. There have been several recent technological advances in the field to allow practitioners the ability to more accurately assess and treat such conditions, but there has been a relative lack of education in the literature regarding the associated Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and methods of reimbursement. This review, commissioned and supported by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society Council, aims to summarize each of the CPT codes for esophageal function testing and show the trends of associated reimbursement, as well as recommend coding methods in a practical context. We also aim to encourage many of these codes to be reviewed on a gastrointestinal (GI) societal level, by providing evidence of both discrepancies in coding definitions and inadequate reimbursement in this new era of esophageal function testing.

Introduction: Colonoscopy is the most commonly used test for colorectal cancer screening in the US, but patients often find the oral bowel preparation difficult, inconvenient, or intolerable. Suboptimal bowel prep occurs in 20-24% of colonoscopies, leading to inadequate examinations that necessitate additional procedures. Colonic irrigation is an FDA-approved method of colon cleansing using a warm water lavage, but few studies have evaluated it as preparation for colonoscopy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate colonic irrigation as an alternative to oral bowel prep in patients undergoing screening/ surveillance colonoscopy. Methods: We conducted a single-center, single-arm feasibility study using the Hydro-San Plus system. Patients followed a low-residue diet and took 2 doses of polyethylene glycol the day before the procedure. Colonoscopy was performed immediately following colonic irrigation. Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS) and adverse events were recorded. A telephone questionnaire was administered within 7 days of the procedure. Results: Of the 21 patients enrolled, 48% had at a medical risk factor for poor prep (Table 1). Eighteen patients completed irrigation, of whom 12 (67%) had an adequate bowel prep, defined as BBPS>1 in all segments (Table 2). Two irrigations were not completed due to minor adverse events (discomfort from speculum insertion and rectal abrasion) and 1 was aborted for mechanical repair. There were no major adverse events. Patients with no risk factors for poor prep were 4 times more likely to have an adequate prep, although this was not statistically significant (P=0.14). Half of the patients felt that irrigation was easy (47%) and comfortable (53%), while most felt it was tolerable (71%) and convenient (82%). Among participants who had previous a colonoscopy with oral prep, the majority felt that irrigation was easier (85%), more tolerable (77%), and more convenient (85%) than oral prep. 82% of respondents said they would ask for irrigation again and only 12% said they would refuse if it were offered. Conclusion: Colonic irrigation is a safe and moderately efficacious alternative to oral bowel prep for screening/surveillance colonoscopy. A more potent oral pre-prep, especially for patients with risk factors for poor prep, may improve efficacy. Importantly, patient satisfaction with colonic irrigation appears to be higher than with oral bowel prep. (Table Presented)

OPINION STATEMENT: Dysphagia is a common problem in the elderly population with an especially high prevalence in hospitalized and institutionalized patients. If inadequately addressed, dysphagia leads to significant morbidity and contributes to decreased quality of life. Dysphagia can be categorized as emanating from either an oropharyngeal or esophageal process. A disproportionate number of elderly patients suffer from oropharyngeal dysphagia with a multifactorial etiology. Historically, treatment options have been limited and included mostly supportive care with a focus on dietary modification, food avoidance, and swallow rehabilitation. Nascent technologies such as the functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) and advances in esophageal manometry are improving our understanding of the pathophysiology of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Recent developments in the treatment of specific causes of oropharyngeal dysphagia, including endoscopic balloon dilations for upper esophageal sphincter (UES) dysfunction, show promise and are expected to enhance with further research. Esophageal dysphagia is also common in the elderly and more commonly due to an identifiable cause. The full breadth of treatment options is frequently unavailable to elderly patients due to comorbidities and overall functional status. However, the increasing availability of less invasive solutions to specific esophageal pathologies has augmented the number of treatment options available to this population, where an individualized approach to patient care is paramount. This review focuses on the evaluation and management of dysphagia in the elderly and delineates how standard and novel therapeutics are contributing to more nuanced and personalized management.