Skip to content

Sphincter, Body, Mucosa in Health and Disease

Esophageal Sphincters in Health and Disease

Overview of the Esophagus

  • Esophagus: Muscular tube connecting the mouth to the stomach.
  • Main Function: Transport of fluids and food for regular nutrition.
  • Sphincters: Special boundaries at proximal and distal ends:
    • Upper Esophageal Sphincter (UES)
    • Lower Esophageal Sphincter (LES)
  • Musculature:
    • UES: Mainly striated muscle
    • LES: Mainly smooth muscle
  • Regulation Influences:
    • Neural innervations
    • Pressure systems
    • Hormonal and chemical factors
    • External and psychological factors

Upper Esophageal Sphincter (UES) in Health

Swallowing Process

  • Complex process requiring coordination to temporarily alter breathing pathways.
  • Main Phases:
    1. Oral Phase:
      • Bolus Formation: Tongue and pharyngeal structures form a bolus.
      • Initiation: Started voluntarily by the individual.
      • Soft Palate Movement: Moves upward to close nasopharynx.
    2. Pharyngeal Phase:
      • Involuntary Sequence.
      • Airway Protection:
        • Soft palate and posterior pharyngeal wall close nasopharynx.
        • Epiglottis flips downward to close off airways.
      • UES Relaxation: Opens for ~1 second to allow bolus passage.
    3. Esophageal Phase:
      • Peristaltic Contractions: Propel bolus through esophagus.
      • UES Closure: Returns to resting position; airway reopens.

Anatomy of the UES

  • Structures:
    • Cricopharyngeal Muscle connected to the cricoid cartilage.
  • Asymmetric Pressure Profile:
    • Due to ventral cartilage and lateral/dorsal muscular parts.
  • Movement During Swallowing:
    • UES moves upward by ~1 cm.
  • Innervation:
    • Mainly by the vagus nerve.
    • Also involves cranial nerves IX (glossopharyngeal) and XII (hypoglossal).

Assessment of the UES

  • Radiographic Studies:
    • Barium Swallow: Visualizes swallowing process and anatomic alterations.
    • May miss subtle functional failures.
  • Manometry:
    • Traditional Manometry: Limited in detecting subtle changes.
    • High-Resolution Manometry (HRM):
      • Provides detailed pressure profiles.
      • Monitors pharyngeal contractions and UES relaxation.
  • Endoscopy:
    • Detects or excludes malignant disease and obstructions.
  • Clinical Assessment:
    • Evaluates symptoms and impact on quality of life.

Changes of the UES in Disease

Cervical Dysphagia

  • Definition: Difficulty swallowing at the level of the neck.
  • Possible Causes:
    • Neurologic Disorders:
      • Cerebral infarction, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis.
      • Affect coordination of swallowing muscles.
    • Myogenic Disorders:
      • Polymyositis, muscular dystrophy, myasthenia gravis.
      • Cause loss of muscular strength.
    • Anatomic Abnormalities:
      • Tumors, enlarged thyroid, abscesses, Zenker diverticulum.
      • Scarring from accidents, surgery, or radiation.
    • Idiopathic Dysfunctions:
      • Dysfunction of UES, LES, or esophageal body without clear cause.
  • Functional Testing:
    • HRM: Detects incomplete UES relaxation and coordination issues.
    • Radiographic Studies: Assess structural abnormalities.
    • Clinical Symptoms: Include dysphagia and aspiration.

Lower Esophageal Sphincter (LES) in Health

Physiologic Function and Anatomic Structure

  • Function:
    • Prevents reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus.
    • Allows passage of food into the stomach.
    • Permits belching and vomiting when necessary.
  • Anatomic Features:
    • No distinct muscular thickening but a high-pressure zone exists.
    • Muscular Structures:
      • Semicircular Muscular Clasps: Toward the lesser curvature.
      • Gastric Sling Fibers: At the angle of His.
    • Diaphragm's Role:
      • Crura of Diaphragm: Form part of the antireflux barrier.
      • Phrenoesophageal Membrane: Anchors esophagus at the hiatus.
  • Pressure Dynamics:
    • Positive Intraabdominal Pressure: Supports LES function.
    • Hiatal Opening: Esophagus passes through diaphragm, influenced by pressure changes during respiration.

Functional Characteristics of the LES and Antireflux Barrier

  • High-Pressure Zone:
    • Length: 3–5 cm in healthy individuals.
    • Pressure: Mean of 14 mm Hg.
  • Components of LES Competence:
    • Overall Length: Total length of the high-pressure zone.
    • Intraabdominal Length: Portion of LES within the abdomen.
    • Sphincter Pressure: Resistance against reflux.
  • Transient LES Relaxations (tLESRs):
    • Spontaneous relaxations not triggered by swallowing.
    • Allow release of gastric gas (belching).
    • Controversial Role in GERD:
      • May result from gastric distention and LES shortening.
  • High-Resolution Manometry (HRM):
    • Provides detailed pressure mapping of LES and diaphragm.
    • Helps distinguish between LES and diaphragmatic pressures.

Lower Esophageal Sphincter in Disease

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)

  • Definition: Reflux of gastric contents causing symptoms or complications.
  • LES Incompetence:
    • Weakening of LES pressure and length.
    • Shortening of intraabdominal LES segment.
  • Hiatal Hernia:
    • Sliding of LES into the chest.
    • Weakening of the phrenoesophageal membrane contributes.
  • Contributing Factors:
    • Overeating: Enlarges fundus, leading to LES shortening.
    • Obesity: Increases intraabdominal pressure.
    • Aging: Weakens supporting tissues.
  • Diagnosis:
    • Manometry and HRM: Assess LES pressure and structure.
    • Endoscopy: Evaluate esophageal mucosa for damage.
  • Clinical Implications:
    • Severity of GERD correlates with degree of LES dysfunction.
    • Treatment Decisions: May involve medical therapy or surgery.

Achalasia and Other Esophageal Motility Disorders

  • Achalasia:
    • Failure of LES relaxation during swallowing.
    • Loss of peristalsis in esophageal body.
    • Symptoms: Dysphagia, chest pain, regurgitation.
  • Chicago Classification:
    • Type I: Minimal esophageal pressurization.
    • Type II: Panesophageal pressurization.
    • Type III: Spastic distal esophageal contractions.
  • Diagnosis:
    • HRM: Confirms LES non-relaxation and classifies achalasia.
    • Timed Barium Swallow: Measures esophageal emptying.
    • Endoscopy: Excludes other causes like cancer.
  • Treatment:
    • Pneumatic Dilation: Widens LES.
    • Surgical Myotomy: Cuts LES muscle fibers.
    • Botulinum Toxin Injection: Temporarily relaxes LES.

Hypertensive Lower Esophageal Sphincter

  • Definition: Elevated LES pressure with normal relaxation and preserved esophageal peristalsis
  • Symptoms: Dysphagia and chest pain.
  • Diagnosis:
    • Manometry: Shows high LES pressure.
  • Treatment:
    • Botulinum Toxin Injection.
    • Pneumatic Dilation.
    • Myotomy: Surgical cutting of LES muscle.

Conclusion

  • Esophageal Sphincters are essential for proper swallowing and preventing reflux.
  • UES and LES Dysfunction can lead to significant symptoms like dysphagia and GERD.
  • Accurate Diagnosis using tools like HRM is crucial for effective management.
  • Understanding the complex physiology aids in identifying and treating related disorders.

Note: This guide focuses on the key concepts of esophageal sphincter function in health and disease, highlighting important structures, processes, and pathologies for a clear understanding of the subject.

Esophageal Body in Health and Disease

Overview

  • High-Resolution Manometry (HRM): A diagnostic tool that evaluates esophageal motility by measuring intraluminal pressure changes with closely spaced sensors.
  • Chicago Classification: A system that defines esophageal motility disorders based on HRM findings.
    • Versions: Initially proposed in 2008, updated in 2011, and latest in 2014 (Version 3.0).
    • Categories of Disorders:
      1. EGJ Outflow Obstruction: Achalasia and EGJ outflow obstruction.
      2. Major Peristalsis Disorders: Absent contractility, distal esophageal spasm, hypercontractile esophagus.
      3. Minor Disorders: Characterized by impaired bolus transit, such as ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).

Esophageal Body in Health

Evaluation of Esophageal Motility Using HRM

  • Standard Procedure: Assessment of ten 5-mL water swallows in the supine position.

Key Features Evaluated During Swallowing:

  1. EGJ Relaxation
  2. Esophageal Contractile Activity
  3. Esophageal Pressurization

Pressure Topographic Measurements:

  • Integrated Relaxation Pressure (IRP):
    • Measures EGJ relaxation.
    • Defined as the mean pressure during the 4 seconds of maximal deglutitive relaxation within a 10-second window starting from UES relaxation.
    • Normal Values: Vary depending on the HRM device (15-28 mm Hg).
  • Distal Contractile Integral (DCI):
    • Quantifies the vigor of the distal esophageal contraction.
    • Calculated as the product of amplitude (>20 mm Hg), duration, and length of the contractile segment.
    • Normal Range: 450-8000 mm Hg·s·cm.
  • Contractile Deceleration Point (CDP):
    • The inflection point where the propagation velocity of the contractile front slows in the distal esophagus.
    • Important for evaluating peristaltic integrity.
  • Distal Latency (DL):
    • Interval between UES relaxation and CDP.
    • Reflects the integrity of inhibitory pathways.
    • Normal Value: ≥4.5 seconds.

Evaluation of the Esophagogastric Junction (EGJ) Morphology

  • Components Influencing EGJ Pressure:
    • Lower Esophageal Sphincter (LES) Pressure
    • Crural Diaphragm (CD) Contraction
    • Intrabolus Pressure: Pressure within the bolus as it passes through the EGJ.

EGJ Morphology Types:

  1. Type I: LES and CD completely overlapped.
  2. Type II: LES and CD partially overlapped (separation ≤2 cm).
  3. Type III: LES and CD separated by >2 cm.
    • Type IIIa: Pressure inversion point at CD.
    • Type IIIb: Pressure inversion point at LES.

Deglutitive Esophageal Contraction

  • Primary Peristalsis:
    • Initiated by swallowing.
    • Wave travels at 3-4 cm/s.
    • Amplitudes reach 60-140 mm Hg in the distal esophagus.
  • Secondary Peristalsis:
    • Triggered by local esophageal distention.
    • Clears residual food or refluxed gastric contents.
  • Tertiary Waves:
    • Non-peristaltic, uncoordinated contractions.
    • Considered abnormal but may be asymptomatic, especially in the elderly.

Contraction Integrity and Patterns:

  • Contraction Integrity:
    • Evaluated by the 20-mm Hg isobaric contour.
    • Small breaks (2-5 cm) are normal.
    • Large breaks (>5 cm) indicate weak contractions.
  • Intrabolus Pressure Patterns:
    • Panesophageal Pressurization: Pressure spans from UES to EGJ.
    • Compartmentalized Pressurization: Pressure localized between the contractile front and EGJ.

Esophageal Body in Disease

Disorders of EGJ Outflow Obstruction

  • Definition: Median IRP >15 mm Hg indicating impaired EGJ relaxation.
  • Categories:
    • Achalasia Subtypes
    • EGJ Outflow Obstruction without Achalasia

Achalasia

  • Overview:
    • A motility disorder characterized by impaired LES relaxation and absent or abnormal peristalsis.
    • Leads to difficulty in swallowing (dysphagia), chest pain, and regurgitation.

Achalasia Subtypes (Chicago Classification):

  1. Type I (Classic Achalasia):
    • Features:
      • 100% failed peristalsis (DCI <100 mm Hg·s·cm).
      • No esophageal pressurization.
    • Clinical Implication:
      • Less favorable response to pneumatic dilatation compared to Type II.
  2. Type II (Achalasia with Esophageal Compression):
    • Features:
      • 100% failed peristalsis.
      • Panesophageal pressurization in ≥20% of swallows.
    • Clinical Implication:
      • Best response to treatments like pneumatic dilatation and surgical myotomy.
  3. Type III (Spastic Achalasia):
    • Features:
      • Preserved fragments of distal peristalsis.
      • Premature contractions (DCI >450 mm Hg·s·cm) in ≥20% of swallows.
    • Clinical Implication:
      • Poor response to standard treatments.
      • May require alternative therapies (e.g., peroral endoscopic myotomy).

Clinical Impact of Achalasia Subtypes:

  • Treatment Outcomes:
    • Type II patients generally have the best response to both pneumatic dilatation and surgical myotomy.
    • Type I patients have intermediate outcomes.
    • Type III patients often have the least favorable response and may need specialized interventions.
  • Predictive Factors for Treatment Failure:
    1. Low LES resting pressure.
    2. High preoperative chest pain scores.
    3. Manometric patterns indicating Type III achalasia.

Esophagogastric Junction (EGJ) Outflow Obstruction

  • Definition: Elevated IRP with normal or weak peristalsis, not meeting criteria for achalasia.
  • Symptoms: Dysphagia and chest pain.
  • Management: Requires thorough evaluation to differentiate from achalasia and to guide appropriate treatment.

Major Motility Disorders

Aperistalsis

  • Definition: Normal IRP with 100% failed peristalsis (DCI <100 mm Hg·s·cm).
  • Associated Conditions:
    • Severe Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD).
    • Collagen vascular diseases (e.g., scleroderma).
  • Symptoms: Severe dysphagia, regurgitation, and possible malnutrition.

Distal Esophageal Spasm

  • Definition: Normal EGJ relaxation with ≥20% premature contractions (DCI >450 mm Hg·s·cm and DL <4.5 s).
  • Symptoms: Intermittent dysphagia and chest pain.
  • Pathophysiology: Impaired inhibitory pathways leading to uncoordinated contractions.

Hypercontractile (Jackhammer) Esophagus

  • Definition: Presence of at least one swallow with a DCI >8000 mm Hg·s·cm in ≥20% of swallows.
  • Symptoms: Chest pain, dysphagia, possible GERD-like symptoms.
  • Associations:
    • Can occur as a primary disorder.
    • May be related to GERD, EGJ outflow obstruction, or eosinophilic esophagitis.

Minor Motility Disorders

Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM)

  • Definition: ≥50% ineffective swallows (DCI <450 mm Hg·s·cm).
  • Symptoms: Dysphagia, especially with solid foods; may exacerbate GERD.
  • Clinical Significance:
    • Commonly seen in GERD patients, especially those with erosive esophagitis or extraesophageal symptoms (e.g., chronic cough, asthma).
    • Associated with prolonged esophageal acid clearance times.
  • Studies:
    • Fouad et al.: IEM more frequent in GERD patients with respiratory symptoms.
    • Diener et al.: IEM linked to more severe reflux and mucosal injury.

Fragmented Peristalsis

  • Definition: Presence of large breaks (>5 cm) in the 20-mm Hg isobaric contour in ≥50% of swallows, without meeting criteria for IEM.
  • Clinical Impact:
    • May contribute to impaired bolus transit.
    • Less severe than IEM but can be symptomatic.

Conclusion

  • Esophageal Motility Disorders: A spectrum ranging from minor disorders like IEM to major disorders such as achalasia.
  • High-Resolution Manometry (HRM): Essential for accurate diagnosis and classification of esophageal motility disorders.
  • Chicago Classification: Provides a standardized framework for interpreting HRM findings and guiding management.
  • Clinical Relevance:
    • Identifying specific motility patterns is crucial for predicting treatment outcomes.
    • Tailored therapies improve patient symptoms and quality of life.

Note: Understanding esophageal motility and its disorders is vital for diagnosing and managing conditions that affect swallowing and esophageal function. High-resolution manometry and the Chicago Classification are key tools in this process.

Esophageal Mucosa in Health and Disease: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)

Introduction

  • Pathology's current role in GERD:
    • Limited to diagnosing intestinal metaplasia, increasing dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma in Barrett esophagus.
    • No clinical value in diagnosing or managing GERD before visible columnar lined esophagus (vCLE) occurs.
  • New proposal:
    • Introduce a pathologic test for lower esophageal sphincter (LES) damage based on mucosal changes defined by histology.
    • Requires discarding two long-held dogmas:
      • Histology dogma: Cardiac epithelium normally lines the proximal stomach and is present at the normal gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).
      • Endoscopic dogma: The GEJ is accurately defined by the proximal limit of the rugal folds and/or the end of the tubular esophagus.

Present Status of GERD

Prevalence and Symptom Management

  • GERD prevalence: Affects 20% to 40% of the population with troublesome symptoms.
  • Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs):
    • Control symptoms in approximately 70% of patients.
    • Do not prevent disease progression in the remaining 30% who experience treatment failure.
  • Progression to Severe GERD:
    • No current methods to prevent progression to refractory GERD (PPI failure).
    • Endoscopy is indicated only after PPI failure or onset of alarm symptoms (e.g., dysphagia).

Limitations of Current Diagnostic Methods

  • Endoscopy:
    • Often fails to correlate with symptoms; Nonerosive Reflux Disease (NERD) patients may have normal endoscopy.
    • Biopsy:
      • Not recommended in endoscopically normal squamous epithelium.
      • Histologic changes lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity.
  • Symptoms vs. Endoscopic Findings:
    • Patients can have severe esophageal damage (e.g., Barrett esophagus) without symptoms.
    • Symptomatic patients may show no endoscopic abnormalities.

Treatment Approach

  • Empiric PPI Therapy:
    • Initiated based on typical reflux symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation).
    • Objective testing (e.g., ambulatory pH monitoring) is rarely used initially.
    • Symptom control is the primary goal; there is no focus on preventing disease progression.

Consequences of Current Management

  • No prevention of disease progression:
    • Leads to impaired quality of life and increased risk of adenocarcinoma.
  • Surgery:
    • Antireflux surgery is an option but is associated with its own complications.
    • Many patients decline surgery, continuing to suffer from severe symptoms.

Progression of GERD Under PPI Therapy

The Pro-GERD Study Findings

  • Study Overview:
    • Prospective study involving 6215 patients with primary symptom of heartburn.
    • Patients underwent initial endoscopy, received PPI therapy, and were re-evaluated after 5 years.
  • Erosive Esophagitis Healing:
    • Significant reversal and healing of erosive esophagitis with PPI therapy.
  • Progression to vCLE:
    • 9.7% of patients without initial vCLE developed it after 5 years.
    • Factors associated with progression:
      • Erosive esophagitis severity.
      • Regular PPI use.
      • Alcohol intake.
      • Male gender (negative association with female gender).

Implications

  • PPI Therapy:
    • While effective in healing erosive esophagitis, may be associated with progression to vCLE.
  • Adenocarcinoma Risk:
    • The increase in vCLE contributes to the rising incidence of GERD-induced adenocarcinoma.

Proposed New Pathologic Criteria for GERD

Limitations of Current Pathology

  • Histologic Changes:
    • Intercellular edema, basal cell hyperplasia, papillary elongation, and eosinophil/neutrophil infiltration.
    • Lack sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing GERD.
  • No Current Criteria for LES Damage:
    • Need for a test that assesses the abdominal segment of the LES (a-LES).

New Pathologic Test Proposal

  • Objective:
    • Define the presence and extent of a-LES damage using histology.
  • Potential Impact:
    • Transform GERD management by focusing on the root cause: LES damage.
    • Provide a method to prevent progression to severe GERD and adenocarcinoma.

Defining Irreversibility: Visible Columnar Lined Esophagus (vCLE)

Importance of vCLE

  • Point of Irreversibility:
    • Occurrence of vCLE signals the inability to prevent progression to adenocarcinoma.
  • Barrett Esophagus:
    • In the UK, vCLE defines Barrett esophagus.
    • In the US and Europe, requires vCLE with intestinal metaplasia.

Challenges with Current Management

  • Lack of Reversal:
    • Medical treatment does not reverse vCLE or prevent its progression.
  • Delayed Endoscopy:
    • Current guidelines delay endoscopy until after PPI treatment failure, missing early detection opportunities.

Need for Prevention

  • Preventing vCLE:
    • Essential to stop the progression to adenocarcinoma.
    • Requires intervention before significant reflux damages the thoracic esophagus.

Cause of vCLE and Risk Factors

Pathogenesis of vCLE

  • Result of Reflux:
    • Exposure of the esophagus to gastric contents due to LES failure.
  • Severity and Duration of Reflux:
    • Increased risk with severe and prolonged reflux episodes.

Risk Factors for Progression to vCLE

  • Male Gender.
  • Alcohol Use.
  • Regular PPI Therapy.
  • Severe Erosive Esophagitis.
  • Intestinal Metaplasia at the SCJ:
    • Presence increases the risk of progression to vCLE.

Proposed New Management Objectives

Preventing Progression to vCLE

  • Early Intervention:
    • Aim to prevent reflux into the thoracic esophagus that can cause vCLE.
  • New Histologic Test:
    • Utilize the proposed LES damage assessment to identify high-risk patients.
  • Revised Endoscopy Guidelines:
    • Advocate for earlier endoscopy before PPI treatment failure.

Potential Outcomes

  • Reduction in Adenocarcinoma Incidence:
    • By preventing vCLE, decrease the progression to adenocarcinoma.
  • Improved Quality of Life:
    • Prevent severe GERD symptoms and treatment failures.
  • Shift from Reactive to Proactive Management:
    • Focus on early detection and prevention rather than symptom control alone.

Lower Esophageal Sphincter (LES)

Introduction

  • Obstacle in GERD Study:
    • Lack of a pathologic method to assess the LES in autopsy and resection specimens.
    • LES can only be defined and measured by manometry.

Function and Anatomy of the LES

  • Role of LES:
    • Acts as a barrier preventing reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus.
    • LES Pressure:
      • Normally >15 mm Hg.
      • Exceeds both:
        • Esophageal pressure: ~−5 mm Hg.
        • Gastric pressure: ~+5 mm Hg.
    • Functions as a valve against the natural pressure gradient from stomach to esophagus.

Defining Normal and Defective LES by Manometry

  • Manometric Components:
    • Mean LES pressure.
    • Total LES length.
    • Abdominal LES (a-LES) length.
  • Normal Values:
    • Mean LES pressure: >15 mm Hg.
    • Total LES length: 40–50 mm.
    • a-LES length: 30–35 mm.
  • Defective LES Criteria:
    • Mean LES pressure: <6 mm Hg.
    • Total LES length: <20 mm.
    • a-LES length: <10 mm.
    • Associated with:
      • Frequent sphincter failure.
      • Abnormal pH test.
      • Significant exposure of esophageal squamous epithelium to reflux.

LES Reserve Capacity and Compensated LES Damage

  • Reserve Capacity:
    • The gap between normal and defective LES represents reserve capacity.
    • LES Damage Progression:
      • As damage increases, reserve decreases.
      • LES maintains competence until reserve is exhausted (green zone in Table 3.1).
  • Compensated LES Damage:
    • Early damage within reserve capacity.
    • Not detectable by current GERD diagnostic criteria.
    • Patients have:
      • No symptoms.
      • No endoscopic abnormalities.
      • Normal manometry and pH test.
    • Histologic examination with new criteria can detect this early damage.

Measuring LES Damage

  • LES Damage Equation:
    • Initial a-LES length = Measured a-LES length + Length of LES damage.
    • Assumes the anatomic length remains but pressure is lost in the damaged segment.
  • Implications:
    • Damaged LES is distal to the manometric LES and mimics gastric pressure.
    • True end of the esophagus includes the damaged a-LES.
    • Manometry alone cannot define the full extent of LES damage.

LES Reserve Capacity in Asymptomatic Individuals

  • Study by Zaninotto et al.:
    • Measured a-LES length in 49 asymptomatic volunteers.
    • Findings suggest variations may represent degrees of LES damage, not normal variation.
  • Interpretation:
    • An asymptomatic person may have significant LES damage yet remain symptom-free due to reserve capacity.
    • Acid Exposure:
      • Even asymptomatic individuals showed some acid reflux.
      • Indicates that LES failure can occur without symptoms.

Severity of LES Damage and Risk Zones

  • Classification of LES Damage:
    • Compensated Damage (Green Zone):
      • No LES failure.
      • pH test is zero.
    • Mild Damage (Orange Zone):
      • Infrequent LES failure.
      • Normal pH test but with some reflux.
      • vCLE is extremely unlikely.
    • Severe Damage (Red Zone):
      • Frequent LES failure.
      • Abnormal pH test.
      • High risk of developing vCLE.
  • Objective:
    • Prevent a-LES damage from reaching levels that cause significant reflux leading to vCLE.
    • Intervention should occur before a-LES damage exceeds 25 mm.

Limitations of Current GERD Management

  • Current Criteria:
    • Symptoms like heartburn and regurgitation.
    • Findings like erosive esophagitis and defective LES on manometry.
  • Issue:
    • These criteria detect GERD after significant LES damage has occurred.
  • Need for Change:
    • Emphasize early detection and prevention of LES damage to avert progression to adenocarcinoma.

Consequences of Abdominal LES Damage: Dilated Distal Esophagus

Role of Abdominal LES (a-LES)

  • Maintains Tubular Shape:
    • The a-LES opposes the dilatory pressure within the abdominal esophagus.
  • Loss of Function:
    • Damage leads to loss of LES pressure.
    • Results in dilation of the distal esophagus.

Formation of Dilated Distal Esophagus

  • Process:
    • LES Damage leads to:
      • Shortening of the tubular abdominal esophagus.
      • Dilation of the damaged segment.
      • The angle of His becomes more obtuse.
      • Development of mucosal rugal folds (typical of reservoir organs).
  • Revised LES Equation:
    • Initial a-LES length = Residual a-LES length (tubular) + Length of LES damage (dilated segment).
  • Misinterpretation of GEJ:
    • The end of the tubular esophagus is proximal to the true gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).
    • Leads to errors in defining the GEJ in pathology and endoscopy.

Mechanism of Abdominal LES Damage

Cause of LES Damage

  • Gastric Overdistention:
    • Caused by heavy meals leading to increased gastric pressure.
  • Effect on LES:
    • Effacement of the distal LES.
    • Temporary decrease in LES length.
    • Exposes squamous epithelium to gastric juice.

Studies Supporting the Mechanism

  • Ayazi et al. and Robertson et al.:
    • Demonstrated gastric distention causes LES shortening.
    • Exposure of squamous epithelium due to proximal shift of the pH transition point.

Endoscopic Observations

  • SCJ Movement:
    • During stomach insufflation, the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) moves downward.
    • Heavy meals can place squamous epithelium below the pH transition point.
  • Acid Pocket:
    • A concentrated acid zone forms at the top of the gastric contents during meals.
  • Progression of Damage:
    • Repeated exposure leads to:
      • Reversible injury to squamous epithelium.
      • Permanent columnar metaplasia (vCLE).

Pattern of LES Damage

  • Starts Distally:
    • Damage begins at the distal a-LES and progresses upward.
    • Loss of Length:
      • Initiated in the distal segment.

LES Damage and Eating Habits

Eating Disorder Analogy

  • Influence of Diet:
    • Individual eating habits impact the degree of LES damage.
  • Spectrum of Damage:
    • No Damage:
      • LES remains intact; no GERD.
    • Significant Damage:
      • Excessive eating and/or susceptible LES.
      • Rapid progression to LES incompetence and severe GERD.
    • Variable Progression:
      • Rate of LES damage progression defines the severity of GERD in individuals.

Relationship Between LES Length and Failure

Progression of LES Damage

  • Inexorable Progression:
    • Without intervention, LES damage continues throughout life.
  • Impact of PPI Therapy:
    • Proton Pump Inhibitors do not halt LES damage progression.
    • May inadvertently promote overeating by reducing symptoms.

Correlation with Reflux Severity

  • Greater LES Damage:
    • Leads to more severe reflux episodes.
  • Study by Kahrilas et al.:
    • Examined LES length in different groups:
      • Normal subjects.
      • GERD patients without hiatal hernia.
      • GERD patients with hiatal hernia.
    • Findings:
      • Shorter LES length correlated with increased baseline reflux.
      • Gastric distention further shortened LES across all groups.
      • Damaged LES more susceptible to failure during distention.

Conclusions

  • Critical Determinant:
    • a-LES length is crucial in determining reflux severity.
  • Implications for Asymptomatic Individuals:
    • Significant reflux can occur post-meal even without symptoms.
    • Emphasizes the importance of early detection and prevention of LES damage.

Note: The above notes focus on the core concepts related to the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) in health and disease, particularly in the context of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). They highlight the importance of understanding LES anatomy, function, damage mechanisms, and the limitations of current diagnostic and management approaches.

Histologic Measurement of Abdominal Lower Esophageal Sphincter (a-LES) Damage in GERD

Introduction

  • Current Challenge:
    • No existing test accurately predicts patients at high risk of developing visible Columnar Lined Esophagus (vCLE).
    • Symptom severity and PPI response do not reliably predict vCLE risk.
  • Proposed Solution:
    • Histologic measurement of the dilated distal esophagus to assess a-LES damage.
    • Provides a direct method to measure the cause of GERD.

Barriers to Acceptance

  • False Dogmas:
    1. Cardiac Epithelium Dogma:
      • Misbelief that cardiac epithelium is a normal lining of the proximal stomach.
    2. GEJ Definition Dogma:
      • Incorrectly defining the Gastroesophageal Junction (GEJ) as the proximal limit of rugal folds or the end of the tubular esophagus.
  • Impact:
    • These misconceptions prevent recognition of LES damage and misclassify it as normal stomach tissue.

Normal Histology of the Esophagus and Stomach

  • Three Basic Epithelial Types:
    1. Stratified Squamous Epithelium:
      • Lines the esophagus; always present.
    2. Gastric Oxyntic Mucosa:
      • Lines the proximal stomach; contains parietal and chief cells.
    3. Metaplastic Columnar Epithelia (Cardiac Epithelium):
      • Result from chronic exposure of esophageal squamous epithelium to gastric juice.
      • Not normally present in the proximal stomach.

Types of Cardiac Epithelium

  • Histologic Variants:
    1. Pure Cardiac Epithelium:
      • Composed solely of mucous cells.
    2. Oxyntocardiac Epithelium:
      • Cardiac epithelium with parietal cells mixed with mucous cells.
    3. Cardiac Epithelium with Goblet Cells:
      • Indicates intestinal metaplasia.
  • Diagnosis:
    • Based on the presence of mucous cells, parietal cells, and goblet cells.
    • Each glandular unit is classified individually.

Redefining the Gastroesophageal Junction (GEJ)

  • Correct Definition:
    • Proximal limit of gastric oxyntic epithelium.
    • Marks the true transition from esophagus to stomach.
  • Misconceptions:
    • Endoscopic GEJ (proximal rugal folds) is not the anatomical GEJ.
    • Cardiac epithelium distal to the endoscopic GEJ is esophageal, not gastric.

Measuring the Dilated Distal Esophagus

  • Method:
    • Histological examination of mucosa distal to the endoscopic GEJ.
    • Measure length of cardiac epithelium until gastric oxyntic epithelium is reached.
  • Sample Collection:
    • Autopsy/Resection Specimens:
      • Vertical sections from the Squamocolumnar Junction (SCJ) distally.
    • Endoscopic Biopsies:
      • Biopsies at 5 mm intervals from the SCJ.

Variation in Length of the Dilated Distal Esophagus

  • Normal Individuals:
    • No dilated distal esophagus; squamous epithelium transitions directly to gastric oxyntic epithelium.
  • Individuals with LES Damage:
    • Presence of cardiac epithelium correlates with a-LES damage.
    • Length increases with severity of GERD.

New Pathologic Test of LES Damage

  • Measurement:
    • Length of cardiac epithelium between the SCJ and the proximal limit of gastric oxyntic epithelium.
  • Accuracy:
    • Precise measurement possible (within 1 μm) with suitable specimens.
  • Clinical Implications:
    • Direct assessment of a-LES damage.
    • Potential to transform GERD management by identifying patients at risk.

Classification of GERD by LES Damage

  • Assumptions:
    1. Initial a-LES length: 35 mm.
    2. LES failure threshold: a-LES length <10 mm.
    3. Linear progression of LES damage.
  • Stages:
    1. Normal:
      • No LES damage; residual a-LES length: 35 mm.
      • No dilated distal esophagus.
    2. Compensated LES Damage:
      • LES damage <15 mm; residual a-LES >20 mm.
      • Asymptomatic; no significant reflux.
    3. Mild GERD:
      • LES damage 15–25 mm; residual a-LES 10–20 mm.
      • Symptoms controlled with PPIs; risk of vCLE increases.
    4. Severe GERD:
      • LES damage >25 mm; residual a-LES <10 mm.
      • Frequent LES failure; high prevalence of refractory GERD and vCLE.

Evidence Supporting the New Diagnostic Method

  • Challenges:
    • Limited data due to prevailing dogmas and lack of biopsies.
  • Supporting Studies:
    • Correlation between cardiac epithelium length and GERD severity.
    • Presence of submucosal glands under cardiac epithelium confirms esophageal origin.

Prediction of LES Damage Progression

  • Irreversibility:
    • LES damage is permanent and progresses over time.
  • Predictive Capability:
    • Measuring a-LES damage at intervals allows estimation of future LES status.
    • Assumes linear progression starting from early adulthood.

Potential Value in GERD Management

Exclusion of GERD as Symptom Cause

  • Application:
    • Minimal LES damage (<15 mm) indicates symptoms are not due to GERD.
  • Benefit:
    • Prevents unnecessary long-term PPI use.

Risk Stratification and Personalized Treatment

  • High-Risk Identification:
    • Patients with significant LES damage can be monitored more closely.
  • Intervention Planning:
    • Early interventions to prevent progression to vCLE and adenocarcinoma.

Requirements for Implementation

Eliminating Misconceptions

  • Discard False Dogmas:
    • Acknowledge cardiac epithelium as metaplastic esophageal tissue.
    • Redefine GEJ based on histology, not endoscopic appearance.

Development of New Biopsy Devices

  • Need:
    • Instruments capable of obtaining long, oriented mucosal samples.
  • Goal:
    • Improve measurement accuracy of the dilated distal esophagus.

Data Collection and Research

  • Action Items:
    • Conduct studies on asymptomatic individuals and GERD patients.
    • Establish accurate criteria correlating LES damage with vCLE risk.

Non-Endoscopic Measurement Methods

  • Innovation:
    • Develop less invasive techniques for measuring LES damage.
  • Advantage:
    • Increase accessibility and reduce the need for endoscopy.

Prevention Strategies

  • Objective:
    • Create methods to halt progression of a-LES damage.
  • Approach:
    • Early surgical or endoscopic interventions before severe damage occurs.

Future Directions

  • Screening and Early Detection:
    • Implement the histologic test as a routine screening tool (e.g., similar to Pap smear).
  • Patient Empowerment:
    • Provide patients with knowledge about their LES status and future risk.
  • Personalized Care:
    • Tailor treatment plans based on individual LES damage progression.

Conclusion

  • Revolutionizing GERD Management:
    • The new histologic test offers a precise method to assess LES damage, the root cause of GERD.
  • Preventing Adenocarcinoma:
    • Early detection and management can prevent progression to vCLE and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
  • Optimizing Patient Outcomes:
    • Empower patients with information to make informed decisions and improve quality of life.

Note: The above revision notes are structured to highlight key concepts and provide detailed explanations of specific pathologies related to GERD and LES damage. Important terms are bolded for emphasis, and the content reflects the depth and importance of the provided context.

High-Yield Summary of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) and Lower Esophageal Sphincter (LES) Damage