Cost-efficient snare-assisted peroral endoscopic myotomy in comparison of conventional endoscopic knife for treatment of achalasia: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

To date, the ideal endoscopic knife for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) with good performance and cost-effectiveness is still under investigation. The present study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of snare-assisted POEM, compared with the conventional endoscopic knife approach. From May 2017 to December 2018, patients with achalasia presenting for POEM without previous endoscopic or surgical therapy were prospectively recruited in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated to receive POEM using either the snare (snare group) or HookKnife (conventional group). The primary outcome was clinical success (Eckardt score≤3) at 12-month follow-up, powered for noninferiority with a margin of -15%. The secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), procedure-related parameters, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. A total of 75 patients with similar baseline characteristics between the snare (N = 37) and conventional (N = 38) groups were included. Clinical success at 12-month follow-up was achieved in 94.6% of patients in the snare group and 92.1% of patients in the conventional group (difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -8.7% to 13.7%]; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). No severe AEs occurred in both groups. The use of snare is associated with comparable procedure time (40.6minutes vs. 42.5minutes, P = 0.337), a lower frequency of hemostatic forceps use (27.0% vs. 68.4%, P <0.001), and lower hospital costs ($4271.1 vs. $5327.3, P < 0.001). The cost-effectiveness plane revealed that 96.9% of snare-assisted POEM procedures offered more cost-savings and health utility benefits. The snare-assisted POEM was noninferior to the conventional endoscopic knife approach in terms of clinical efficacy, with comparable safety outcomes and cost-effective benefits.