ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2022
Type II achalasia with focal elevated pressures: A distinct manometric and clinical sub-group.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06883175 (Evolution of the Chicago Classification), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Evolution of the Chicago Classification: Bridging Physiology and Mechanics
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry Esophageal Motility Classification Version 2.0: A Study of 805 Patients.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- Esophageal anatomy and physiology vary across spastic and non-spastic phenotypes of disorders of esophagogastric junction outflow.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024Article
- Diagnostic methods to measure spastic segment and guide tailored myotomy length in type 3 achalasia.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
- Identifying spastic variant of type II achalasia after treatment with high-resolution manometry and FLIP Panometry.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
- Chagas' disease achalasia may represent a sub-group of type 2 achalasia without focal elevated pressures.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundType II achalasia (Ach2) is distinguished from other achalasia sub-types by the presence of panesophageal pressurization (PEP) of ≥30 mmHg in ≥20% swallows on high-resolution manometry (HRM). Variable manometric features in Ach2 have been observed, characterized by focal elevated pressures (FEPs) (focal/segmental pressures ≥70 mmHg within the PEP band) and/or high compression pressures (PEP ≥70 mmHg). This study aimed to examine clinical and physiologic variables among sub-groups of Ach2.
methodsThis retrospective single center study performed over 3 years (1/2019-1/2022) included adults with Ach2 on HRM who underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP), and/or barium esophagram (BE) prior to therapy. Patients were categorized into two overarching sub-groups: Ach2 without FEPs and Ach2 with FEPs. Demographic, clinical, and physiologic data were compared between these sub-groups utilizing unpaired univariate analyses. KEY
resultsOf 53 patients with Ach2, 40 (75%) were without FEPs and 13 (25%) had FEPs. Compared with the Ach2 sub-group without FEPs, the Ach2 sub-group with FEPs demonstrated a significantly thickened distal esophageal circular muscle on EUS (1.4 mm [SD 0.9] vs. 2.1 [0.7]; p = 0.02), higher prevalence of tertiary contractions on BE (46% vs. 100%; p = 0.0006), lower esophagogastric junction distensibility index (2.2mm CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: We identified a distinct sub-group of type II achalasia on HRM, defined as type II achalasia with focal elevated pressures. This sub-group uniquely exhibits spastic features and may benefit from personalized treatment approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.