Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility

Afrin N Kamal,Priya Kathpalia,David A Leiman,Albert J Bredenoord,John O Clarke,C Prakash Gyawali,David A Katzka,Adriana Lazarescu,John E Pandolfino,Roberto Penagini,Sabine Roman,Edoardo Savarino,Marcelo F Vela,Fouad Otaki,Afrin N. Kamal,David A. Leiman,Albert J. Bredenoord,John O. Clarke,C. Prakash Gyawali,David A. Katzka,John E. Pandolfino,Marcelo F. Vela

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mcg.0000000000001963

2024-01-15

Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

Abstract:Goals: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). Background: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging. Study: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process. Results: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2’s virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient’s presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning. Conclusion: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

gastroenterology & hepatology