Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT05089929
NCT05089929
Completed
Not Applicable

Endoscopic Esophageal Topography (Endoflip 2.0) Versus High-resolution Manometry (HRM) in Pre-operative Evaluation of GERD; a Non-inferiority Trial

Ohio State University1 site in 1 country55 target enrollmentMarch 19, 2020
ConditionsGERD

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
GERD
Sponsor
Ohio State University
Enrollment
55
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Concordance between the presence of RACs versus the absence of major motility disorder
Status
Completed
Last Updated
2 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

The purpose of the study is to investigate the use of FLIP topography in patients undergoing evaluation for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This device allows the clinician to measure muscle activity in the esophagus during a routine upper endoscopy. The FLIP topography will be used to help detect movement disorders in the esophagus, and to examine differences in patient satisfaction between FLIP topography and the standard of care procedure, high resolution manometry (HRM).

Detailed Description

The goal of the proposed research is to evaluate the endoscopic esophageal functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) with topography (Endoflip® 2.0, Medtronic, USA) as a pre-operative diagnostic test to rule out significant esophageal dysmotility in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Currently, the gold standard for pre-operative motility assessment is high resolution manometry (HRM), a trans-nasal catheter test performed in an awake patient that can be quite uncomfortable, and some patients cannot tolerate.1 Conversely, Endoflip can provide similar data in a sedated patient at the time of upper endoscopy, limiting discomfort and streamlining workup. While Endoflip has been used as a complimentary tool for clinical decision making in major motility disorders, its evaluation as a potential stand-alone pre-operative test in the GERD population has been limited. However, if FLIP topography reliably excludes major motility disorders, patients could proceed with fundoplication without undergoing the additional burden of high resolution manometry (HRM) testing. Unfortunately, as of now, there are insufficient data available to justify a change in clinical practice. As a result, FLIP topography has remained relegated to a purely complimentary role. To investigate this question, the investigators will perform FLIP topography (Endoflip 2.0) analysis on all patients undergoing routine evaluation for gastroesophageal reflux disease at the time of their pre-operative EGD. Those patients with repetitive antegrade contractions (RACs) on FLIP topography will be classified as having normal motility, while any other pattern will be considered abnormal. All patients will additionally complete a standard pre-operative reflux evaluation including HRM, Upper GI series (UGI), 48-hour wireless pH testing, and baseline GERD quality of life surveys. The investigators will then compare the results of the FLIP topography measurements to the results of the gold standard high-resolution manometry (HRM) in terms of the ability of the FLIP topography to differentiate between normal and impaired esophageal function in GERD patients. Subjects will then be followed through their anti-reflux operations and post-operative outcomes will be tracked with standardized symptom questionnaires at 1, 2 and 6 months post-operatively to evaluate for post-operative dysphagia and quality of life. The investigators hypothesize that FLIP topography (Endoflip 2.0) in GERD patients will reliably identify individuals with normal motility, which will predict good outcomes after anti-reflux surgery. If this proves to be the case, formal high resolution manometry (HRM) testing would not be necessary prior to proceeding with fundoplication, allowing a paradigm shift in the pre-operative workup of this large population of patients.

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
March 19, 2020
End Date
June 30, 2023
Last Updated
2 years ago
Study Type
Observational
Sex
All

Investigators

Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Kelly Haisley

Assistant Professor

Ohio State University

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Suspected or known history of GERD
  • Ability to understand and the willingness to sign a written informed consent document

Exclusion Criteria

  • Previous esophageal or gastric surgery (including failed anti-reflux operation)
  • Hiatal Hernia \> 5cm based on upper GI
  • Patients with a known major motility disorder (achalasia)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Concordance between the presence of RACs versus the absence of major motility disorder

Time Frame: 6 months

Evaluate the concordance between the presence of RACs on FLIP topography versus the absence of major motility disorder on HRM as defined by the Chicago classification system v3.

Secondary Outcomes

  • Concordance between the presence of RACs versus distal esophageal amplitude(6 months)

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials

Withdrawn
Not Applicable
Functional Luminal Imaging Probe (FLIP) Topography Use in Patients With Scleroderma and Trouble SwallowingSclerodermaDysphagiaGERD - Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease
NCT03270722Stanford University
Completed
Not Applicable
The Evaluation of Patients With Esophageal and Foregut Disorders With WATS (Wide Area Transepithelial Sample With 3-Dimensional Computer-Assisted Analysis) vs. 4-Quadrant Forceps BiopsyGERDBarrett EsophagusLow Grade Esophageal Glandular DysplasiaEsophageal Diseases
NCT03859557CDx Diagnostics1,032
Withdrawn
Not Applicable
Role of EndoFLIP in the Diagnostic Paradigm of Esophagogastric Junction Outflow ObstructionEsophagogastric Junction Disorder
NCT04938102University of Kansas Medical Center120
Recruiting
Not Applicable
Endoscopic I-scan Versus Histopathological Evaluation Of Esophageal LesionsEsophageal Lesions
NCT05876702Sohag University30
Terminated
Not Applicable
Esophagoscopy in Evaluating Treatment in Patients With Stage I-IV Head and Neck Cancer Who Are Undergoing Radiation Therapy and/or ChemotherapyStage I Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage I Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage I Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the HypopharynxStage I Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the LarynxStage I Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lip and Oral CavityStage I Verrucous Carcinoma of the LarynxStage I Verrucous Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage II Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage II Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage II Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the HypopharynxStage II Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the LarynxStage II Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lip and Oral CavityStage II Verrucous Carcinoma of the LarynxStage II Verrucous Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage III Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage III Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage III Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the HypopharynxStage III Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the LarynxStage III Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lip and Oral CavityStage III Verrucous Carcinoma of the LarynxStage III Verrucous Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage IV Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage IV Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Oral CavityStage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the HypopharynxStage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the LarynxStage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lip and Oral CavityStage IV Verrucous Carcinoma of the LarynxStage IV Verrucous Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity
NCT01164566Wake Forest University Health Sciences6