Table 2.
Expert Panel’s Current Practice Patterns for Esophageal Manometry
| Practice Parameter | Respondents, N (%) |
|---|---|
| Personnel performing procedure*: | |
| • Technician | • 5 (36%) |
| • Nurse | • 11 (79%) |
| • Physician | • 1 (7%) |
| • Other | • 1 (7%) |
| Minimum level of education of qualified personnel: | |
| • High-school diplomma/General Educational Development certification |
• 2 (14%) |
| • College graduate | • 1 (7%) |
| • Medical assistant certification | • 2 (14%) |
| • Nursing certification | • 9 (64%) |
| Physician signing off on final results of esophageal manometry*: | |
| • Gastroenterologist | • 2 (14%) |
| • Gastroenterologist, Motility expert | • 12 (86%) |
| • Gastrointestinal Surgeon | • 2 (14%) |
| Procedures referred by*: | |
| • Gastroenterologist | • 14 (100%) |
| • Gastroenterologist, Motility expert | • 5 (36%) |
| • Gastrointestinal Surgeon | • 6 (43%) |
| • Internist/Primary care provider | • 9 (64%) |
| • Pulmonologist | • 1 (7%) |
| Esophageal manometry system*: | |
| • High-resolution manometry | • 14 (100%) |
| • Conventional manometry | • 1 (7%) |
| High-resolution manometry systems*: | |
| • Sandhill | • 4 (29%) |
| • Sierra Scientific | • 3 (21%) |
| • Given | • 10 (71%) |
| • Medical Measurement System | • 1 (7%) |
| Procedure setting*: | |
| • Ambulatory center | • 3 (21%) |
| • Outpatient clinic | • 7 (50%) |
| • Inpatient gastroenterology lab | • 7 (50%) |
| Anesthetic used*: | |
| • None | • 2 (14%) |
| • Lidocaine spray | • 2 (14%) |
| • Lidocaine gel | • 12 (86%) |
| Informed consent routinely obtained and documented | 9 (64%) |
| Supine wet swallows performed routinely: | 12 (86%) |
| • 5–10 per study | • 6 (50%) |
| • 11–15 per study | • 6 (50%) |
| • > 15 per study | • 0 (0%) |
| Upright wet swallows performed routinely: | 5 (36%) |
| • 5–10 per study | • 2 (40%) |
| • 11–15 per study | • 2 (40%) |
| • > 15 per study | • 1 (10%) |
| Multiple rapid swallows performed routinely | 6 (43%) |
| Mulitple water swallow performed routinely | 2 (14%) |
| Provocative measures utilized routinely | 3 (21%) |
| Time alotted between swallows: | |
| • 10–30 seconds | • 8 (57%) |
| • > 30 seconds | • 6 (43%) |
| Classification scheme utilized*: | |
| • Classic classification scheme | • 5 (36%) |
| • Chicago Classification v3.0 scheme | • 12 (86%) |
| Parameters interpreted routinely*: | |
| • Esophagogastric Junction (EGJ) | • 14 (100%) |
| • EGJ morphology | • 11 (79%) |
| • Integrated relaxation pressure | • 13 (93%) |
| • Peristalsis | • 14 (100%) |
| • Pressurization | • 13 (93%) |
| • Contractile Pattern | • 14 (100%) |
| EGJ relaxation parameters measured*: | |
| • 4 second Integrated relaxation pressure | • 12 (86%) |
| • Single sensor nadir pressure | • 1 (7%) |
| • 3 second nadir pressure | • 1 (7%) |
| • E-sleeve nadir pressure | • 1 (7%) |
| Contractile pattern parameters measured*: | |
| • Contractile front velocity | • 4 (29%) |
| • Distal latency | • 13 (93%) |
| • Distal contractile integral | • 13 (93%) |
| • Peak amplitude | • 1 (7%) |
| • Intrabolus pressure | • 2 (14%) |
| Parameters included in manometry report, routinely: | |
| • Clinical diagnosis | • 14 (100%) |
| • Chicago classification diagnosis | • 13 (93%) |
| • Summary of results | • 14 (100%) |
| • Tabulated manometry results | • 11 (79%) |
| • Treatment recommendations | • 4 (29%) |
| • Follow-up recommendations | • 5 (36%) |
| • Communication to referring provider | • 13 (93%) |
*
Questions with more than one response permissible.