The Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology (Jan 2024)

Association of esophageal motility disorder symptoms with Chicago classification versions 3.0 and 4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry: A single-center experience from Saudi Arabia

  • Mohammed A Alzahrani,
  • Mohammed A Alfahadi,
  • Meshref A Alshehri,
  • Abdulaziz H Alamri,
  • Eman A Almahjani,
  • Aishah M Alahmari,
  • Abdullah A Al-Shahrani,
  • Abdulaziz S Alshahrani,
  • Ibrahim M Almanjahi,
  • Abdullah M Alqarni

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_243_23
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 30, no. 2
pp. 96 – 102

Abstract

Read online

Background: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The Chicago Classification (CC) was developed as a robust framework to enable clinicians to better understand and classify the nature of motility disorders. Previous studies have primarily focused on the CC version 3.0 (CCv3.0), and data regarding the correlation between symptoms and CC version 4.0 (CCv4.0) in the Saudi Arabian population are lacking. This study aimed to assess the correlation between symptoms and CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 using high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) in Saudi Arabia, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both classifications. Methods: A total of 182 patients presenting with esophageal symptoms were included in this study. HRM was performed to assess esophageal motility, and patients' reported symptoms were recorded. The association between HRM findings and symptomatic variables was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Variability was observed in the diagnostic performance of symptomatic variables for major EMDs. CCv4.0 demonstrated a higher sensitivity for dysphagia than CCv3.0; however, it exhibited lower sensitivity to atypical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) exhibited the highest specificity and PPV, whereas typical GERD symptoms showed lower specificity. Conclusion: CCv4.0 demonstrated potential improvements in sensitivity for dysphagia, but lower sensitivity for atypical GERD symptoms, compared with CCv3.0. These insights provide guidance for clinicians in Saudi Arabia and contribute to understanding the diagnostic performance of CCv3.0 and CCv4.0.

Keywords