Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of esophageal manometry, provocative testing, and ambulatory monitoring in patients with unexplained chest pain

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prolonged ambulatory esophageal pH and pressure monitors are being developed to evaluate noncardiac chest pain. This new technology needs comparison with conventional esophageal tests before determining which studies are most useful in diagnosing and treating esophageal chest pain. Therefore, we studied 45 patients with esophageal manometry, acid perfusion and edrophonium tests, and 24 hr pH and pressure monitoring. Manometry was abnormal in 20 patients (44%) with nutcracker esophagus, the most common motility disorder. Fifteen (33%) had positive acid perfusion test and 24 (55%) positive edrophonium test. During ambulatory monitoring, all patients experienced chest pain with a total of 202 individual events: 32 events (15%) secondary to acid reflux, 15 (7%) secondary to motility abnormalities, 7 (3%) to both pH and pressure changes, and 149 events (74%) occurred in the absence of any abnormal pH or motility changes. Patients with normal manometry were significantly (P<0.01) more likely to have acid reflux chest pain events than did nutcracker patients, who had an equal frequency of pH and motility events. A positive acid perfusion test was significantly associated with abnormal pressure events (P=0.02; odds ratio 5.95), while a positive edrophonium test more likely predicted acid reflux chest pain during 24-hr monitoring (P=0.007; odds ratio 7.25). Therefore, abnormal manometry and positive provocative tests point to the esophagus as the likely source of chest pain. However, ambulatory pH and pressure monitoring are required to accurately define the relationship between chest pain and acid reflux or motility disorders. Acid reflux is the most common identifiable cause of esophageal chest pain, while motility disorders are much less frequent than previously suggested by laboratory tests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Richter JE, Bradley LA, Castell DO: Esophageal chest pain: Current controversies in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy. Ann Intern Med 110:66–78, 1989

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Janssens J, Vantrappen G, Ghillebert G: 24 hour recording of esophageal pressure and pH in patients with non-cardiac chest pain. Gastroenterology 90:1978–1984, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Peters L, Maas L, Petty D, Dalton C, Penner D, Wu W, Castell D, Richter J: Spontaneous noncardiac chest pain. Evaluation by 24-hour ambulatory esophageal motility and pH monitoring. Gastroenterology 94:878–886, 1988

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Breumelhof R, Smout AJPM, Breedijk LMA, Akkermans JHSM: Esophageal motility and gastroesophageal reflux in non-cardiac chest pain. A quantitative analysis of 24-hour data. Gastroenterology 96:A59, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  5. Richter JE, Wu WC, Johns DN, Blackwell JN, Nelson JL, Castell JA, Castell DO: Esophageal manometry in 95 healthy adult volunteers. Dig Dis Sci 32:583–592, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Katz PO, Dalton CB, Richter JE, Wu WC, Castell DO: Esophageal testing of patients with noncardiac chest pain and dysphagia. Results of three years' experience with 1161 patients. Ann Intern Med 106:593–597, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Richter JE, Hackshaw BT, Wu WC, Castell DO: Edrophonium: A useful provocative test for esophageal chest pain. Ann Intern Med 103:14–21, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weiner GJ, Morgan TM, Cooper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO, Sinclair JW, Richter JE: Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: Reproducibility and variability of pH parameters. Dig Dis Sci 33:1127–1133, 1988

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weiner GJ, Richter JE, Cooper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO: The symptom index: A clinically important parameter of ambulatory 24 hour esophageal pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 83:358–361, 1988

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hewson EG, Sinclair JW, Dalton CB, Wu WC, Castell DO, Richter JE: The acid perfusion test: Does it have a role in the assessment of noncardiac chest pain. Gut 30:305–310, 1989

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernstein LM, Baker LA: A clinical test for esophagitis. Gastroenterology 34:760–781, 1958

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee CA, Reynolds JC, Ouyang A, Baker L, Cohen S: Esophageal chest pain: Value of high-dose provocative testing with edrophonium chloride in patients with normal esophageal manometries. Dig Dis Sci 32:682–688, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nasrallah SM, Hendrix EA: Comparison of hypertonic glucose to other provocative tests in patients with noncardiac chest pain. Am J Gastroenterol 82:406–409, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barish CF, Castell DO, Richter JE: Graded esophageal balloon distension: a new provocative test for noncardiac chest pain. Dig Dis Sci 31:1292–1298, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goudot-Pernot C, Champignealle B, Bigard MA, Gaucher P: Prospective comparative study of esophageal balloon distention and edrophonium provocative study of esophageal balloon distention and edrophonium provocation in 50 patients with noncardiac chest pain and in 12 healthy controls. Gastroenterology 96:A180, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  16. DeCaestecker JS, Pryde A, Heading RC: Comparison of intravenous edrophonium and oesophageal acid perfusion during oesophageal manometry in patients with noncardiac chest pain. Gut 29:1029–1034, 1988

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vantrappen G, Janssens J, Ghillebert G: The irritable oesophagus—a frequent cause of angina-like pain. Lancet 1:1232–1234, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ward BW, Wu WC, Richter JE, Hackshaw BT, Castell DO: Long-term follow-up of symptomatic status of patients with noncardiac chest pain: Is diagnosis of esophageal etiology helpful? Am J Gastroenterol 82:215–218, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cannon RO III, Bonow RO, Bacharach SL, et al.: Left ventricular dysfunction in patients with angina pectoris, normal epicardial coronary arteries, and abnormal vasodilator reserve. Circulation 71:218–226, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yakshe PN, Catlau EL, Cannon RO III, Maher K, Benjamin SB: Role of provocative testing in differentiating esophageal and cardiac chest pain in patients with microvascular angina and esophageal motility disorders. Gastroenterology 96:A555, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kahrilas PJ, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ: Dysfunction of the belch reflux. Gastroenterology 93:818–822, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shapiro LM, Crake T, Poole-Wilson PA: Is altered cardiac sensation responsible for chest pain in patients with normal coronary arteries? Clinical observation during cardiac catheterization. Br Med J 296:170–171, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  23. Clouse RE, Lustman PJ: Psychiatric illness and contraction abnormalities of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 309:1387–1392, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hewson EG, Sinclair JW, Dalton CB, Wu WC, Richter JE: A comparison of traditional esophageal tests and 24 hour pH study in noncardiac chest pain. Gastroenterology 96:A208, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  25. DeMeester TR, O'Sullivan GC, Bermudez G, Middell AI, Cimochowiski GE, O'Drobinak JO: Esophageal function in patients with angina-type chest pain and normal coronary angiograms. Ann Surg 196:488–498, 1982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hewson, E.G., Dalton, C.B. & Richter, J.E. Comparison of esophageal manometry, provocative testing, and ambulatory monitoring in patients with unexplained chest pain. Digest Dis Sci 35, 302–309 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537406

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537406

Key words

Navigation