Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 31;31(1):38-44.
doi: 10.5056/jnm24097.

Optimizing Assessment of Contraction Reserve in Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Study of Upright Multiple Rapid Swallows

Tian Li  1 , D Chamil Codipilly  2 , Diana Snyder  2 , Karthik Ravi  2 , Maoyin Pang  1 , Andree H Koop  1
Affiliations

Optimizing Assessment of Contraction Reserve in Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Study of Upright Multiple Rapid Swallows

Tian Li et al. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. .

Abstract

Background/aims: Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative test during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) to evaluate contraction reserve (CR). This study aims to determine the prevalence of CR in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and MRS performed in the upright position, and to assess the ideal number of MRS sequences.

Methods: We enrolled adult patients diagnosed with IEM according to the Chicago classification version 4.0 who underwent HRM with 3 MRS sequences. Presence of CR was identified as either: the distal contraction integral (DCI) of the post-MRS sequence exceeding the mean DCI of single swallows (ratio > 1) or the mean DCI of the 3 post-MRS sequences surpassing the mean DCI of single swallows. The occurrence of CR was compared following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences.

Results: When assessing CR in 57 patients referenced to mean single supine swallow DCI, the pooled prevalence of CR following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences was 23/57 (40.4%), 31/57 (54.4%), and 33/57 (57.9%), respectively. More patients had CR after 2 MRS sequences compared to 1 (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in CR between 2 and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.160). More patients had CR after 2 (P = 0.013) and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.034) when CR was referenced to single upright compared to single supine swallows.

Conclusion: Among patients with IEM, 58.0% had CR after 3 upright MRS sequences and 2 were adequate to assess CR.

Keywords: Contration reserve; Deglutition; Esophageal motility disorders; Gastroesophageal reflux; Manometry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Contraction reserve (CR) assessed by the ratio of any post-multiple rapid swallows distal contraction integral (post-MRS DCI) > mean single supine swallow DCI (A) and any post-MRS DCI > mean single upright swallow DCI (B). *Statistical significance in pairwise comparison to 1 MRS sequence.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Contraction reserve (CR) between patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) applied by Chicago classification version 4.0 (CC v4.0) to 10 upright swallows and assessed with 1 and 3 upright multiple rapid swallows (MRS) sequences. Numbers above the bars represent percentages. *Significance in pairwise comparison to patients with 1 MRS sequence performed. DCI, distal contraction integral.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Gyawali CP, Sifrim D, Carlson DA, et al. Ineffective esophageal motility: concepts, future directions, and conclusions from the Stanford 2018 symposium. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;31:e13584. doi: 10.1111/nmo.13584. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yadlapati R, Kahrilas PJ, Fox MR, et al. Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0©. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33:e14058. doi: 10.1111/nmo.14053. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boland K, Abdul-Hussein M, Tutuian R, Castell DO. Characteristics of consecutive esophageal motility diagnoses after a decade of change. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50:301–306. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000402. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27:160–174. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12477. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gyawali CP, Zerbib F, Bhatia S, et al. Chicago classification update (v4.0): technical review on diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and absent contractility. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33:e14134. doi: 10.1111/nmo.14134. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources