J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2024; 30(4): 381-382  https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm24121
Exploration of Diagnostic Value of Chicago Classification Version 4.0: Focusing on Rapid Drink Challenge
Soo In Choi
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to: Soo In Choi, MD
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, 245 Eulji-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul 04564, Korea
Tel: +82-10-6740-5099, E-mail: bestcsi@naver.com

Article: Additional diagnostic yield of the rapid drink challenge in Chicago classification version 4.0 compared with version 3.0
Wang H, Jung KW, Noh JH, et al
(J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2024;30:453-458)
Received: August 17, 2024; Accepted: September 3, 2024; Published online: October 30, 2024
© The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. All rights reserved.

cc This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Body

The recently published Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) standardizes the protocol for performing high-resolution manometry (HRM) and provides a more sophisticated diagnostic flow for esophageal motility disorders compared to version 3.0.1 Major differences between CCv4.0 and its predecessor include the requirement for testing in both supine and upright positions, the inclusion of provocation tests such as multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge (RDC), and the use of supportive tests such as functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) and timed barium esophagogram for ambiguous diagnoses. CCv4.0 also suggests different integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) reference values based on equipment type and position. The updated diagnostic criteria have become more stringent, particularly for esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO). These revisions aim to establish consistency in testing protocols, enhance diagnostic reliability, and minimize inconclusive or ambiguous diagnoses, thereby increasing the number of patients who receive appropriate treatment.

The article by Wang et al2 investigates the clinical diagnostic efficacy of the RDC provocation test when added to the standard protocol in CCv4.0. This provocation test challenges the esophagus through continuous liquid ingestion, capturing the dynamic responses of the esophageal body and lower esophageal sphincter, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of esophageal motility disorders.3 The results of the study found that adding RDC to the diagnostic flow increased diagnostic yield by 1.99%. However, it also revealed a significant issue with a 17.93% failure rate for RDC. This conflicting outcome highlights the need for careful interpretation and application of RDC results and provides insight into the practical implications of implementing CCv4.0 in clinical settings. Despite the modest increase in diagnostic efficiency, the high failure rate suggests the need for a personalized approach and tailored diagnostic strategies in diagnosing esophageal motility disorders. Notably, a significant proportion of patients in the RDC failure group were diagnosed with achalasia, indicating that RDC may not be effective for all diagnoses. This suggests that additional tests, such as FLIP or timed barium esophagogram, may be important for a comprehensive evaluation of esophageal motility disorders.

The study estimated the diagnostic cutoff value for RDC-integrated relaxation pressure (RDC-IRP) as 19 mmHg based on receiver operating characteristic analysis of FLIP data from the Diversatek system. Previous studies using the Medtronic system have reported cutoff values for RDC-IRP ranging from 8 mmHg to 16.7 mmHg.4-6 These differences could be attributed to variations in technology and patient demographics, such as age,7,8 and they highlight potential inconsistencies between different HRM systems.

The study also showed that many diagnoses of EGJOO made under CC v3.0 were revised with CC v4.0. While CC v4.0 improves the diagnostic process,9-12 further validation of RDC in various clinical settings, along with the standardization of diagnostic values across HRM systems, may be necessary.

Future research should explore the clinical implications of RDC failures and the variations in diagnostic cutoff values. Validating cutoff values across different HRM systems and assessing the broader applicability of RDC within CCv4.0 will be essential. Collaborative efforts and standardization for HRM protocol will be crucial for enhancing diagnostic reliability and providing effective treatment for patients with of esophageal motility disorders.

In conclusion, while CCv4.0 represents a significant advancement in the field, this study emphasizes the need for ongoing evaluation and refinement of diagnostic tools such as RDC. Addressing these challenges will improve diagnostic accuracy and ensure optimal treatment for patients with esophageal motility disorders.

Financial support

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References
  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.
    CrossRef
  2. Wang H, Jung KW, Noh JH, et al. Additional diagnostic yield of the rapid drink challenge in Chicago classification version 4.0 compared with version 3.0. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2024;30:453-458.
    CrossRef
  3. Marin I, Serra J. Patterns of esophageal pressure responses to a rapid drink challenge test in patients with esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2016;28:543-553.
    CrossRef
  4. Ang D, Hollenstein M, Misselwitz B, et al. Rapid drink challenge in high-resolution manometry: an adjunctive test for detection of esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2017;29:e12902.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Visaggi P, Ghisa M, Del Corso G, et al. Chicago classification v4.0 protocol improves specificity and accuracy of diagnosis of oesophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2022;56:606-613.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Krause AJ, Su H, Triggs JR, et al. Multiple rapid swallows and rapid drink challenge in patients with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction on high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2021;33:e14000.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. do Carmo GC, de Assis Mota G, da Silva Castro Perdoná G, de Oliveira RB. Integrated Relaxation Pressure and Its Diagnostic Ability May Vary According to the Conditions Used for HREM Recording. Dysphagia 2024;39:746-756.
    CrossRef
  8. Jung KW, Jung HY, Myung SJ, et al. The effect of age on the key parameters in the Chicago classification: a study using high-resolution esophageal manometry in asymptomatic normal individuals. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:246-257.
    CrossRef
  9. Carmel M, Cohen DL, Hijazi B, et al. Chicago classification version 4.0 improves stratification of ineffective esophageal motility patients into clinically meaningful subtypes: a two-center international study. Dysphagia 2024;39:444-451.
    CrossRef
  10. Noh JH, Jung KW, Yoon IJ, et al. Comparison of diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders by Chicago classification versions 3.0 and 4.0. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2023;29:326-334.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Alcalá-González LG, Ezquerra-Duran A, Aguilar A, et al. Benefit of extending the protocol for high resolution manometry according to the version 4.0 of the Chicago criteria. A multicenter study. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2023;35:e14503.
    CrossRef
  12. Carlson DA, Schauer JM, Kou W, Kahrilas PJ, Pandolfino JE. Functional lumen imaging probe panometry helps identify clinically relevant esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction per Chicago classification v4.0. Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118:77-86.
    CrossRef


This Article


Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)

Author ORCID Information

Services

Social Network Service

e-submission

Archives

Aims and Scope