A Comparison between Chicago Classification Versions 3.0 and 4.0 and Their Impact on Manometric Diagnoses in Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Cases

Abstract

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management.

Keywords

• high-resolution manometry
• Chicago classification
• ineffective esophageal motility
• esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction
• achalasia