Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025

Robotic Myotomy and Partial Fundoplication for Achalasia
Published on: August 11, 2023
Chicago Classification Version 4.0 Improves Stratification of Ineffective Esophageal Motility Patients into
Moshe Carmel1,2, Daniel L Cohen3, Basem Hijazi4
1Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. mocarmel@gmail.com.
Insights
The updated Chicago Classification v4.0 for esophageal motility disorders restricts Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) diagnoses. Patients with IEM under v4.0 show poorer esophageal function and higher acid exposure, indicating a more clinically relevant patient group.
Area of Science:
- Gastroenterology
- Esophageal Physiology
- Diagnostic Criteria
Background:
- The Chicago Classification (CC) provides standardized criteria for esophageal motility disorders.
- CC v4.0 introduced more restrictive criteria for Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to CC v3.0.
- Understanding the impact of these updated criteria is crucial for accurate diagnosis and patient management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare patients diagnosed with IEM under CC v3.0 who were reclassified as normal under CC v4.0 versus those who retained an IEM diagnosis.
- To evaluate the clinical and manometric differences between these groups.
- To assess the impact of the new CC v4.0 criteria on IEM diagnosis.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective case-control study analyzing high-resolution manometry (HRM) data from 2020-2021.
- Reanalyzed studies initially diagnosed with IEM under CC v3.0 using CC v4.0 criteria.
- Compared demographics, clinical data, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters between groups.
Main Results:
- Out of 154 CC v3.0 IEM cases, 39 (25%) were reclassified as normal by CC v4.0.
- The CC v4.0 normal group exhibited better recovered contractions and lower acid exposure time than the CC v4.0 IEM group.
- CC v4.0 identified fewer patients with IEM, identifying a cohort with significantly worse esophageal function and higher acid burden.
Conclusions:
- CC v4.0 criteria for IEM are more restrictive than CC v3.0.
- The updated criteria successfully identify a subgroup of patients with IEM who exhibit more severe esophageal dysfunction and higher acid exposure.
- CC v4.0 may refine IEM diagnosis to a more clinically significant population, warranting further investigation.
Abstract:
The 4th iteration of the Chicago Classification (CC v4.0) for esophageal motility disorders offers more restrictive criteria for the diagnosis of Ineffective Esophageal Motility (IEM) compared to version 3.0 (CC v3.0). In light of the updated criteria for IEM, we aimed to characterize and compare the patients who retained their IEM diagnosis to those who were reclassified as normal motility, and to evaluate the clinical impact of the newly introduced CC v4.0. We performed a retrospective case-control study. We included all individuals who underwent a high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2020 and 2021 at two centers. Consecutive studies reported as IEM according to the CC v3.0 were reanalyzed according to the CC v4.0. We compared demographics, clinical, manometry, and pH-monitoring parameters. Out of 452 manometry studies, 154 (34%) met criteria for IEM as per the CC v3.0 (CC v3.0 IEM group). Of those, 39 (25%) studies were reclassified as normal studies according to the CC v4.0 (CC v4.0 normal group), while the remaining 115 studies (25% of the overall cohort) retained an IEM diagnosis (CC v4.0 IEM group). The CC v4.0 normal group had more recovered contractions during solid swallows (p = 0.01), less ineffective swallows (p = 0.04), and lower acid exposure time (p = 0.02) compared to the CC4.0 IEM group. Under CC v4.0 criteria, fewer patients are diagnosed with IEM. Those diagnosed with IEM had worse esophageal function and higher acid burden. Though further studies are needed to confirm these findings, our results indicate that CC v4.0 criteria restrict the IEM diagnosis to a more clinically meaningful population.
Related Concept Videos
Esophageal Strictures-II: Clinical Features and Management
Healthcare providers should gather a comprehensive medical history and conduct a physical examination for diagnosis. If esophageal stricture is...
Esophageal Strictures-I: Introduction
Etiology
The primary cause of esophageal strictures is long-standing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), accounting for about 70 to 80% of adult cases. Chronic acid reflux can lead to injury and scarring of the esophageal lining, culminating in...
Barrett Esophagus-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
To diagnose Barrett's esophagus, healthcare providers often recommend an endoscopy for those showing symptoms of acid reflux. The procedure...
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Barrett Esophagus-I: Introduction
This constant acid exposure transforms the esophagus's pink mucosal lining (stratified squamous epithelium) into a type of lining more...
Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders

