High-resolution manometry in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: Elevated prevalence of esophageal involvement and differences according to autoantibody status and clinical subset

Maria Casal-Dominguez, Iago Pinal-Fernandez, Marianela Mego, Anna Accarino, Lluis Jubany, Fernando Azpiroz, Albert Selva-O'callaghan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Introduction: In this study we assessed high-resolution manometry (HRM) findings in patients with dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Methods: From 2008 to 2015, we performed a cross-sectional study of myositis patients. A survey of esophageal symptoms and HRM data were analyzed and compared among different clinical and serologic groups. Results: Twenty-four (45%) of the 53 patients included in the study had manometric involvement that was not correlated with any esophageal symptom (P = 0.8). Failed waves (34% vs. 0%, P = 0.004) and decreased upper esophageal sphincter pressure (50 vs. 70 mm Hg, P = 0.03) were more common in polymyositis than in dermatomyositis patients. Jackhammer esophagus was more common in anti–TIF1-γ patients (30% vs. 9%, P = 0.04), and lower esophageal sphincter involvement (47% vs. 25%, P = 0.03) was more prevalent in patients with the antisynthetase syndrome. Conclusions: Esophageal involvement is common in myositis patients, but it correlates poorly with esophageal symptoms. Specific clinical and serologic groups have different manometric features. Muscle Nerve 56: 386–392, 2017.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)386-392
JournalMuscle and Nerve
Volume56
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2017

Keywords

  • autoantibodies
  • dermatomyositis
  • dysphagia
  • esophageal involvement
  • high-resolution manometry
  • polymyositis

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'High-resolution manometry in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: Elevated prevalence of esophageal involvement and differences according to autoantibody status and clinical subset'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this