Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Group Research Articles

Direct cost variance analysis of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs heller myotomy for management of achalasia: A tertiary referral center experience.

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been the traditional surgical treatment for achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has demonstrated similar clinical outcomes with shorter procedure times. Studies comparing the direct cost-effectiveness of POEM vs LHM are limited. To compare costs of POEM vs LHM. This retrospective chart review aimed to compare the outcomes and cost of clinical care between patients who underwent POEM and LHM procedures for achalasia. The study was conducted at a tertiary academic center from January 2019 to December 2020. Clinical outcomes, including post-operative Eckardt scores and adverse events, were assessed and compared between the two groups. Direct cost variance analysis was utilized to evaluate the cost of clinical care incurred by patients undergoing POEM in the year preceding the procedure, during the index admission, and one year post-procedure, in comparison to patients undergoing LHM. Of 30 patients were included (15 POEM and 15 LHM) in the study. Patients in the POEM group had a mean Eckardt score of 0.5 ± 0.5 post-procedure, which was no different from patients in the LHM group (0.7 ± 0.6, P = 0.17) indicating comparative efficacy. However, the total costs of the admission for the procedure in the LHM group were on average $1827 more expensive than in the POEM group (P < 0.01). Total healthcare costs one year prior to index procedure were $7777 higher in the LHM group, but not statistically different (P = 0.34). The patients in the LHM group one year after the index procedure had accrued $19730.24 larger total cost, although this was not statistically different from POEM group (P = 0.68). Despite similar clinical outcomes, the cost of the index procedure admission for POEM was significantly lower than for LHM. The difference was primarily related to shorter time increments utilized in the operating room during the index procedure, and shorter length of hospital stay following POEM.

Stapling peroral endoscopic myotomy over Heller?

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been considered a safe and effective endoscopic therapeutic option for idiopathic achalasia. However, loosening the lower esophageal sphincter inevitably increases the risk of reflux, and the benefits of POEM may be compromised compared with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), which can be accompanied by simultaneous partial fundoplication. Owing to limitations in the methodological quality of most studies, and the inconsistent assessment used, the rate of reflux varies significantly among different studies [1]. In a multicenter, randomized trial of 221 patients, POEM demonstrated noninferiority to LHM plus Dor fundoplication in controlling symptoms of achalasia at 2 years, but the incidence of reflux was significantly higher [2]. At 3 months, 57 % of patients in the POEM group and 20 % of patients in the LHM group had reflux esophagitis, as assessed by endoscopy; at 24 months, the corresponding percentages were 44 % and 29 % [2].

Salvage peroral endoscopic myotomy is a promising treatment for achalasia after myotomy failure

Reintervention modalities after myotomy failure in achalasia patients have yet to be established. The efficacy and safety of salvage peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treatment of achalasia after myotomy failure were evaluated in the study. Between August 2011 and August 2021 at the Endoscopy Center of Zhongshan Hospital, 219 achalasia patients who had previously undergone a myotomy underwent a salvage POEM and were thus retrospectively enrolled in this study. After propensity score matching (PSM), operation-related parameters were compared between the salvage POEM group and the naïve POEM group. Subgroup analysis was performed between patients with previous Heller myotomy (HM) and patients with previous POEM. With similar baseline characteristics between both groups after PSM, the salvage POEM group presented with shorter tunnel length (11.8 ± 2.2 cm vs 12.8 ± .9 cm, P< .0001) and myotomy length (9.8 ± 2.0 cm vs 10.4 ± 1.0 cm, P< .0001) than the naïve POEM group. No significant differences were found in procedure-related adverse events between patients of salvage POEM and naïve POEM. The primary outcome of treatment success occurred in 175 of 193 patients (90.7%) in the salvage POEM group versus 362 of 374 patients (96.8%) in the naïve POEM group (P= .0046). At a 2- and 5-year follow-up, significantly higher rates of clinical failures were observed in the previous HM subgroup than in the previous POEM subgroup (P= .0433 and P= .0230, respectively). Salvage POEM after a previous myotomy failure, especially after a POEM failure, is a promising treatment option because it has a durable clinical relief rate.

The Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy vs Pneumatic Dilation as Treatment for Patients With Achalasia Suffering From Persistent or Recurrent Symptoms After Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

For patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilation (PD) is the most frequently used treatment. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being investigated as rescue therapy. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of POEM vs PD for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM. This randomized multicenter controlled trial included patients after LHM with an Eckardt score >3 and substantial stasis (≥2 cm) on timed barium esophagogram and randomized to POEM or PD. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score of ≤3 and without unscheduled re-treatment. Secondary outcomes included the presence of reflux esophagitis, high-resolution manometry, and timed barium esophagogram findings. Follow-up duration was 1 year after initial treatment. Ninety patients were included. POEM had a higher success rate (28 of 45 patients [62.2%]) than PD (12 of 45 patients [26.7%]; absolute difference, 35.6%; 95% CI, 16.4%-54.7%; P= .001; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54; relative risk for success, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.37-3.99). Reflux esophagitis was not significantly different between POEM (12 of 35 [34.3%]) and PD (6 of 40 [15%]). Basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP-4) were significantly lower in the POEM group (P= .034; P= .002). Barium column height after 2 and 5 minutes was significantly less in patients treated with POEM (P= .005; P= .015). Among patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM, POEM resulted in a significantly higher success rate than PD, with a numerically higher incidence of grade A-B reflux esophagitis. NL4361 (NTR4501), https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID= NTR4501.

When is POEM truly equivalent to LHM? A comparison of complication rates during the learning curve.

Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) is an effective treatment for Esophageal Achalasia Cardia (EAC) but the endoscopic technique required is complex. As competency is crucial for patient safety, we believe that its' competency can be demonstrated when the complication rate equals that of an established procedure such as Laparoscopic Heller's Myotomy with Fundoplication (LHM + F). A multicentre, ambi-directional, non-randomized comparison of intra-procedural complications during the learning curve of POEM was performed against a historical cohort of LHM + F. Demographic, clinicopathological, procedural data and complications were collected. A direct head-to-head comparison was performed, followed by a population pyramid of complication frequency. Case sequence was then divided into blocks of 5, and the complication rates during each block was compared to the historical cohort. From January 2010 to April 2021, 60 patients underwent LHM + F and 63 underwent POEM. Mean age was lower for the POEM group (41.7years vs 48.1years, p = 0.03), but there was no difference in gender nor type of Achalasia. The POEM group recorded a shorter overall procedural time (125.9min vs 144.1min, p = 0.023) and longer myotomies (10.1cm vs 6.2cm, p = 0.023). The overall complication rate of POEM was 20.6%, whereas the historical cohort of LHM + F had a rate of 10.0%. On visual inspection of the population pyramid, complications were more frequent in the earlier procedures. On block sequencing, complication frequency could be seen tapering off dramatically after the 25th case, and subsequently equalled that of LHM + F. POEM is challenging even for experienced endoscopists. From our data, complication rates between POEM and LHM + F equalize after approximately 25 POEMs.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in treatment-naive patients with achalasia: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

2-year follow-up data from our randomised controlled trial showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy is associated with a significantly higher efficacy than pneumatic dilation as initial treatment of therapy-naive patients with achalasia. Here we report therapeutic success rates in patients treated with peroral endoscopic myotomy compared with pneumatic dilation at the 5-year follow-up. We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Hong Kong, and the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed symptomatic achalasia (based on an Eckardt score >3) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to peroral endoscopic myotomy or pneumatic dilation using web-based randomisation with a random block size of 8 and stratification according to site. Randomisation concealment for treatment type was double blind until official study enrolment. Treatment was unmasked because of the different technical approach of each procedure. Patients in the pneumatic dilation group were dilated with a single series of 30-35 mm balloons. The need for subsequent dilations in the pneumatic dilation group, and the need for dilation after initial treatment in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group, was considered treatment failure. The primary outcome was therapeutic success (Eckardt score ≤3 in the absence of severe treatment-related complications and no need for retreatment). Analysis of the primary outcome was by modified intention to treat, including all patients randomly assigned to a group, excluding those patients who did not receive treatment or were lost to follow-up. Safety was assessed in all included patients. This study is registered at the Dutch Trial Registry, NTR3593, and is completed. Between Sept 21, 2012, and July 20, 2015, 182 patients were assessed for eligibility, 133 of whom were included in the study and randomly assigned to peroral endoscopic myotomy (n=67) or pneumatic dilation (n=66). 5-year follow-up data were available for 62 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group and 63 patients in the pneumatic dilation group. 50 (81%) patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group had treatment success at 5 years, compared with 25 (40%) in the pneumatic dilation group, an adjusted absolute difference of 41% (95% CI 25-57; p<0·0001). Reasons for failure were no initial effect of treatment (one patient in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group vs 12 patients in the pneumatic dilation group) and recurrent symptoms causing treatment failure (11 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group [seven patients between 2 and 5 years] vs 25 patients in the pneumatic dilation group [nine patients between 2 and 5 years]); one patient in the pneumatic dilation group had treatment failure due to an adverse event. Proton-pump inhibitor use (mostly daily) was significantly higher after peroral endoscopic myotomy than after pneumatic dilation among patients still in clinical remission (23 [46%] of 50 patients vs three [13%] of 24 patients; p=0·008). 5-year follow-up endoscopy of patients still in clinical remission showed reflux oesophagitis in 14 (33%) of 42 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group (12 [29%] grade A or B, two [5%] grade C or D) and two (13%) of 16 patients in the pneumatic dilation group (two [13%] grade A or B, none grade C or D; p=0·19). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years after treatment. The following non-intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years: a stroke (one [2%]) in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group; and death due to a melanoma (one [2%]) and dementia (one [2%]) in the pneumatic dilation group. Based on this study, peroral endoscopic myotomy should be proposed as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia. Although our study has shown that peroral endoscopic myotomy has greater long-term efficacy with a low risk of major treatment-related complications, this should not lead to abandonment of pneumatic dilation from clinical practice. Ideally, all treatment options should be discussed with treatment-naive patients with achalasia and a shared decision should be made. Fonds NutsOhra and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Recurrent dysphagia after myotomy for achalasia: pneumatic dilation or POEM? : Which modality offers superior outcomes?

Myotomy is the gold standard treatment for achalasia, yet long-term failure rates approach 15%. Treatment options for recurrent dysphagia include pneumatic dilation (PD), laparoscopic redo myotomy, per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), or esophagectomy. We employ both PD and POEM as first-line treatment for these patients. We evaluated operative success and patient reported outcomes for patients who underwent PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia after myotomy. We identified patients with achalasia who underwent PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia after previous myotomy within a foregut database at our institution between 2013 and 2021. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) and Eckardt scores, and overall change in each were compared across PD and POEM groups. Successful treatment of dysphagia was defined by Eckardt scores ≤ 3. 103 patients underwent myotomy for achalasia. Of these, 19 (18%) had either PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia. Nine were treated with PD and 10 with POEM. The mean change in Eckardt and GERD-HRQL scores did not differ between groups. 50% of the PD group and 67% of the POEM group had resolution of their dysphagia symptoms (p = 0.65). Mean procedure length was greater in the POEM group (267 vs 72min, p < 0.01) as was mean length of stay (1.56 vs 0.3days, p < 0.01). There was one adverse event after PD and three adverse events after POEM. After PD, 7 patients (70%) required additional procedures compared to four patients (44%) in the POEM group, consisting mostly of repeat PD. Patients undergoing PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia after myotomy have similar rates of dysphagia resolution and reflux symptoms. Patients undergoing PD enjoy a shorter length of stay and shorter procedure time but may require more subsequent procedures.

Comparison of fully coated anti-reflux metal stenting and per-oral endoscopic myotomy in patients with achalasia: a propensity score-matched retrospective study

BackgroundAchalasia is a rare primary esophageal motility disorder disease. It is reported that the long-term effect of fully coated anti-reflux metal stent (FCARMS) implantation is satisfactory. Operated by a skilled and experienced endoscopist, the effect of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) treatment is equivalent to that of surgical myotomy. So far, there is still few evidence to prove FCARMS implantation or POEM which is better for achalasia. The choice of treatment for achalasia is still controversial. The aim of this study is to find a more suitable therapy for achalasia by comparing the efficacy of FCARMS implantation and POEM.MethodsA propensity score (PS) matching (1:2) was used in this retrospective cohort study. Data collected from consecutive patients of Achalasia, receiving FCARMS implantation or POEM therapy at the department of gastroenterology, the Seventh Medical Center of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital from May 2007 to May 2018. According to their previous treatment, they are divided into two groups, FCARMS group and POEM group. Clinical efficacy and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsA total of 166 cases were collected, including 113 cases of FCARMS and 53 cases of POEM. By PS matching, 150 patients were enrolled (100 cases of FCARMS and 50 cases of POEM). By comparison, the FCARMS group has shorter operation time, shorter fasting time and lower hospitalization costs than the POEM group (p < 0.05). Common complications in the FCARMS group are nausea, vomiting, and stent shift. Repetitions of gastroscopy in the FCARMS group was more often, which were 3.8 ± 2.4 (vs 2.1 ± 1.8 of POEM) (p = 0.00 < 0.05) The 6-month remission rates of the FCARMS combination POEM group were 89% and 94%, respectively (p = 0.39), and the 2-year remission rates were 61% and 90%, respectively (p = 0.00).ConclusionsStent placement is a cost-effective and safe treatment option for achalasia. The short-term effect (less than 6 months) of FCARMS is similar to that of POEM, the long-term effect (more than 2 years), POEM is better than FCARMS. HRMIIis most suitable for POEM treatment. It indicate that Patients can choose treatment methods according to their own conditions.

Use and Safety of Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy for Achalasia in the US

Several professional practice guidelines recommend per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) as a potential first-line therapy for the management of achalasia, yet payers remain hesitant to reimburse for the procedure owing to unanswered questions regarding safety. To evaluate the use, safety, health care utilization, and costs associated with the use of POEM for treatment of achalasia relative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and pneumatic dilation (PD). This was a retrospective national cohort study of commercially insured patients, aged 18 to 63 years, who underwent index intervention for achalasia with either LHM, PD, or POEM in the US between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. Patient data were obtained from a national commercial claims database. Included in the study were patients with at least 12 months of enrollment after index treatment and a minimum of 6 months of continuous enrollment before their index procedure. Patients 64 years or older were excluded to avoid underestimation of health care claims from enrollment in Medicare supplemental insurance. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2019, to July 1, 2021. Changes in the proportion of annual procedures performed for achalasia were evaluated over time. The frequency of severe procedure-related adverse events, including perforation, pneumothorax, bleeding, and death, were compared. Negative binomial regression was used to compare the incidence rates of subsequent diagnostic testing, reintervention, and unplanned hospitalization. Generalized linear models were used to compare differences in 1-year health-related expenditures across procedures. This cohort study included a total of 1921 patients (median [IQR] age: LHM group, 48 [37-56] years; 737 men [51%]; PD group, 51 [41-58] years; 168 men [52%]; POEM group, 50 [40-57] years; 80 men [56%]). The use of POEM increased 19-fold over the study period, from 1.1% (95% CI, 0.2%-3.2%) of procedures in 2010 to 18.9% in 2017 (95% CI, 13.6%-25.3%; P = .01). Adverse events were rare and did not differ between procedures. Compared with LHM, POEM was associated with more subsequent diagnostic testing (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.6) and reinterventions (IRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3). When compared with PD, POEM was associated with more subsequent diagnostic testing (IRR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8) but fewer reinterventions (IRR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6). The total 1-year health care costs were similar between POEM and LHM, but significantly lower for PD (mean cost difference, $7674; 95% CI, $657-$14 692). Results of this cohort study suggest that POEM was associated with higher health care utilization compared with LHM and lower subsequent health care utilization but higher costs compared with PD. The use of POEM is increasing rapidly; payers should recognize the totality of evidence and current treatment guidelines as they consider reimbursement for POEM. Patients should be informed of the trade-offs between approaches when considering treatment.

Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) for pediatric achalasia: Institutional experience and outcomes

BackgroundThe surgical treatment of achalasia by both laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches has been recognized as the definitive management in children. Despite reported low volumes in many centers, there has been an increasing worldwide experience with endoscopic approaches to pediatric achalasia. The aim of this study is to report our institutional experience with per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) as first-line or revisional therapy for achalasia. MethodsAn IRB approved retrospective review of all patients who underwent operative procedures for achalasia, specifically with the POEM technique, from July 2015 to September 2021. Data including demographics, intra-operative details, pre and post operative Eckardt scores, complications, outcomes, and follow-up were obtained. ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 43 children underwent 46 operations for achalasia including POEM and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Operations included 37 POEMS (33 primary POEMS; 3 POEMS after failed LHM; and 1 POEM after failed POEM). Additionally, 9 LHM operations including, 4 primary LHM; 3 attempted POEMS converted to LHM; 1 attempted POEM after failed LHM converted to redo LHM; and 1 LHM after failed POEM. In the POEM group (n = 37), based on the high resolution esophageal manometry findings Chicago Classification types at diagnosis were as follows: 9 patients were type I (24.3%); 25 patients were type II (67.6%); 2 patients were type III (5.9%) and 1 patient was unknown type (2.7%). Sixteen children (43.2%) had prior endoscopic treatment of achalasia prior to POEM [Pneumatic Balloon Dilatation (PBD), and/or Botox injection (BTI)],), while prior operative intervention occurred in 4 patients (10.8%), 3 LHM and 1 POEM. Age at operation was 2–18 years (mean ± SD age: 11.6 ± 4.5 years). Weight at operation 11.8–100.7 kg (mean ± SD kg; 39 ± 19.9 kg). Range of baseline Eckardt score was 4–10 (mean ± SD: 6.73 ± 1.5). Operative time was 64–359 min (mean ± SD minutes: 138.1 ± 62.2 min). Intraoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (43.2%) but did not require reoperation during index admission including: 4 mucosotomy (11.8%); 9 pneumothoraces (24.3%); 2 pneumomediastinum (5.4%); 10 pneumoperitoneum (27%); 0 sub-mucosal tunnel bleeding (0%); 0 open conversion/death (0%). Post operative complications included: 5 recurrent dysphagia (13.5%); 0 esophageal leak (0%); 3 GERD (8.1%); 1 failed POEM (2.7%). Median length of stay was 2 days (mean ± SD days: 2.4 ± 0.9 day). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 74 months (median 15 months), mean follow-up 22.6 months ± 20 months. Post POEM Eckardt score was 0.6 ± 0.9. Five patients required a single PBD post POEM (13.5%) and 1 patient required a repeat myotomy (LHM) after POEM (2.7%) for a 16.2% reintervention rate. Subsequent normalization of Eckardt scores (≤ 3) and symptomatic relief was achieved in all patients (100%). ConclusionsPOEM as first-line therapy for pediatric achalasia, or as a secondary procedure after failed prior myotomy or POEM, in our experience is safe and effective. We have shown equivalent results to our own prior experience with LHM. Long-term follow-up will be performed to monitor for recurrent symptoms, adequate physical growth, and general development. Level of evidenceII.

Morphologic Changes in Esophageal Body Movement During Bolus Transport After Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Type III Achalasia

Background/AimsThe effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) on esophageal body movement in achalasia is poorly understood. This study aims to evaluate morphological changes in esophageal body movement after POEM in type III achalasia by analyzing intraluminal ultrasound (US) images in comparison to type I and II achalasia.MethodsIntraluminal US images and impedance values of the distal esophagus from 47 achalasia patients who underwent POEM or pneumatic dilatation (PD) (30 patients in the POEM group and 17 patients in the PD group) with pre- and post-procedural high-resolution impedance manometry and intraluminal US examinations were analyzed. The muscle thickness (MT), muscle cross-sectional area, lumen cross-sectional area (LCSA), contractility and distensibility indices, swallow-to-distension interval, and distension duration during each bolus transport were analyzed.ResultsThe MT increased and LCSA decreased significantly (P < 0.001), but the contractility index was not improved after POEM or PD in type I achalasia. Baseline MT increased and LCSA decreased significantly after POEM and PD in type II achalasia (P < 0.001). In contrast, MT and the swallow-to-distension interval decreased and the distension LCSA/duration and contractility index increased after POEM in type III achalasia (P < 0.001). In contrast to type I and II achalasia, in type III achalasia, these effects were unique to the POEM group.ConclusionsPOEM decreased the esophageal LCSA by decreasing intrabolus pressure without improving contractility in type I and II achalasia. In contrast, POEM increased esophageal body distension and contractility and improved the inhibitory process during bolus transport in type III achalasia.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs pneumatic dilation (PD) in treatment of achalasia: A meta-analysis of studies with ≥ 12-month follow-up

Background and study aims Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being used as the preferred treatment option for achalasia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of POEM versus pneumatic balloon dilation (PD). Methods We performed a comprehensive review of studies that reported clinical outcomes of POEM and PD for the treatment of achalasia. Measured outcomes included clinical success (improvement of symptoms based on a validated scale including an Eckardt score ≤ 3), adverse events, and post-treatment gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Results Sixty-six studies (6268 patients) were included in the final analysis, of which 29 studies (2919 patients) reported on POEM and 33 studies (3050 patients) reported on PD and 4 studies (299 patients) compared POEM versus PD. Clinical success with POEM was superior to PD at 12, 24, and 36 months (92.9 %, vs 76.9 % P = 0.001; 90.6 % vs 74.8 %, P = 0.004; 88.4 % vs 72.2 %, P = 0.006, respectively). POEM was superior to PD in type I, II and III achalasia (92.7 % vs 61 %, P = 0.01; 92.3 % vs 80.3 %, P = 0.01; 92.3 %v 41.9 %, P = 0.01 respectively) Pooled OR of clinical success at 12 and 24 months were significantly higher with POEM (8.97; P = 0.001 & 5.64; P = 0.006). Pooled OR of GERD was significantly higher with POEM (by symptoms: 2.95, P = 0.02 and by endoscopic findings: 6.98, P = 0.001). Rates of esophageal perforation (0.3 % vs 0.6 %, P = 0.8) and significant bleeding (0.4 % vs 0.7 %, P = 0.56) were comparable between POEM and PD groups. Conclusions POEM is more efficacious than PD in the treatment of patients with achalasia during short-term and long-term follow-up, albeit with higher risk of abnormal esophageal acid exposure.

Population trends in achalasia diagnosis and management: a changing paradigm.

The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders improved the differentiation of achalasia subtypes and tailored treatment. Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilation are two established treatments for achalasia. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has become a third definitive option and is on the rise. Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, we evaluated patients hospitalized with achalasia and associated surgical and endoscopic interventions from 2013 to 2017 and compared patients undergoing HM versus POEM. The NIS database was queried to include patients with achalasia. Patients who underwent HM, POEM (only 2017 due to lack of distinct procedure code in 2013), pneumatic dilation, or esophagectomy were identified. Adverse events during the hospitalization were also queried using diagnosis codes. From 2013 to 2017, patients hospitalized with achalasia increased from 16850 to 19485. There were reductions in the number of esophageal dilations (10.6-5.4%, P < 0.001) and HM (18.7-13.1%, P < 0.001). In 2017, 580 POEMs were performed. Compared with patients undergoing HM in 2017, patients who had POEM had higher mean age > 64 (P = 0.004), Charlson comorbidity index (P < 0.001), disease severity (P < 0.001), and likelihood of mortality (P < 0.001). There were no differences in length of stay, mortality, or total costs between the HM and POEM groups. Patients hospitalized with achlasia increased from 2013 to 2017, possibly due to the growth and accessibility of high-resolution esophageal manometry. As expertise in POEM increases, the number of POEM performed is anticipated to rise with possible further reductions in other treatment modalities for achalasia.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy provides effective palliation in type III achalasia

BackgroundType III achalasia outcomes have historically been met with limited success after conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and pneumatic dilation. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a promising alterative for a multitude of reasons. Our objective was to investigate POEM outcomes in palliating type III achalasia. MethodsA retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was conducted in a tertiary care institution between April 2014 and July 2019. The primary outcome was postoperative Eckardt score. We also explored the effect of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) integrated resting pressure (IRP) on manometry, barium column height and width, and complications. Standard statistical methods were applied using R. ResultsA total of 518 patients in the achalasia database were identified, with 308 patients undergoing LHM and 210 undergoing POEM during the study period. POEM was used for type III achalasia in 36 patients (median age, 60 years; 61.7% male), with a median operative time of 85 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 71-115 minutes) and follow-up of 1 year (IQR, 0.16-2.25 years). Within the POEM group, 11 patients (33%) had previous interventions, including Botox injections to the LES (n = 7), pneumatic dilation (n = 1), and LHM (n = 3). A significant decrease in median Eckardt score was observed (7 preoperatively [IQR, 6-8.75] vs 0 postoperatively [IQR, 0-1]; P < .01). Similar improvements after POEM were noted in median LES IRPs (25.5 mmHg vs 4.5 mmgHg; P < .01), 1-minute barium column height (10 cm vs 0 cm; P < .01), and 1-minute barium column width (2 cm vs 0 cm; P < .01). Patients reported a return to activities of daily living in a median of 7 days (IQR, 3-7 days). Three patients experienced complications, including mucosal perforation resolving with conservative management (n = 1), readmission for bleeding duodenal ulcer responding to proton pump inhibitors (n = 1), and readmission for dysphagia and rehydration (n = 1). Postoperative esophageal pH studies were conducted in 21 patients (62%), demonstrating a Demeester score of >14.72 in 13 patients (62%). ConclusionsPOEM provides effective and durable palliation for type III achalasia, as demonstrated by symptom relief, esophageal manometry, and radiographic measurement. Considering its low morbidity profile, POEM should be considered as first-line therapy in this challenging disease subtype.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is more cost-effective than laparoscopic Heller myotomy in the short term for achalasia: economic evaluation from a randomized controlled trial.

Background and study aims We aimed to perform an economic evaluation of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of achalasia. Materials and methods An economic cost-utility analysis was carried out over a time horizon of 1 year. Patients with achalasia who were admitted to the gastroenterology outpatient clinic of a public tertiary referral hospital were assigned to undergo POEM or LHM. The monetary amounts ​​were extracted from the intranet of the institution using microcosting. All costs associated with the procedure, hospitalization, clinical follow-up and resolution of therapeutic complications were included. The utility data were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which were estimated from the scores of a quality-of-life questionnaire. Results Forty patients (20 POEM patients and 20 LHM patients) were included. The final cost associated with POEM and LHM was US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53 and US$ 1,696.44 ± 412.21, respectively ( P < 0.001). However, the QALYs in the POEM group (0.434 ± 0.215 vs 0.332 ± 0.222, P = 0.397) were slightly higher than those in the LHM group. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) suggested that an additional US$ 9,046.41/QALY gained was required when using POEM. Conclusion For the treatment of achalasia in the public health system, POEM appears to be more cost-effective than LHM in the short term.

How does per-oral endoscopic myotomy compare to Heller myotomy? The Latin American perspective.

Background and study aims Both Heller myotomy (HM) and per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are efficacious therapies for achalasia. The efficacy and safety of POEM vs HM in Latin America and specifically in patients with Chagas disease is unknown. Patients and methods Consecutive patients undergoing either HM or POEM for achalasia were included from nine Latin American centers in a prospective registry over 5 years. Technical success was defined as undergoing a successful myotomy. Clinical success was defined as achieving an Eckardt score < 3. Data on demographics, procedure info, Eckardt score, and adverse events (AEs) were collected. Student’s t test, Chi squared, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results One hundred thirty-three patients were included (59 male; 44 %; mean age 47). POEM was performed in 69 patients, HM in 64 patients. A total of 35 patients had Chagas disease, 17 of 69 in the POEM group, 18 of 64 in the HM group. Both groups had significant reduction in Eckardt scores ( P < 0.00001), but successful initial therapy was significantly higher in the POEM group compared to the HM group ( P = 0.01304). AEs were similar in both group (17 % vs 14 %) and consisted of pneumothorax (n = 3 vs 2), bleeding requiring transfusion (n = 3 vs 2), and mediastinitis (n = 3 vs 1). Hospital stay was longer in the HM group than in the POEM group ( P < 0.00001). In the Chagas subgroup, post-procedure Eckardt score in the POEM group was significantly reduced by 5.71 points ( P < 0.00001) versus 1.56 points in the HM group ( P = 0.042793). Conclusion Both HM and POEM are efficacious for achalasia, but POEM was associated with higher initial therapy success and shorter hospital stay in Latin America. In Chagas patients with achalasia, POEM was significantly more effective than HM.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Presently, the primary endoscopic options for the treatment of achalasia are peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and pneumatic dilation. But the clinical outcomes of POEM and pneumatic dilation for achalasia have not yet to be fully evaluated. So, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the two treatment modalities. We searched all the relevant studies published up to September 2019 examining the comparative efficacy between POEM and pneumatic dilation. Outcomes included success rate, Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter pressure and adverse events. Outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratios and mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager 5.3. Seven studies with a total of 619 patients were identified. There were 298 patients underwent POEM treatment and 321 patients underwent pneumatic dilation treatment. The clinical success rate was higher in the POEM group than that in the pneumatic dilation group at 6, 12 and 24 months' follow-up, with a risk ratio of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06-1.22, P = 0.0002, I= 0%), 1.34 (95% CI, 1.24-1.45, P < 0.00001, I= 17%) and 1.35 (95% CI, 1.10-1.65, P = 0.004, I= 70%), respectively. The change of Eckardt scores was more obvious in the POEM group than in the pneumatic dilation group, with a mean difference of 1.19 (95% CI, 0.78-1.60, P < 0.00001, I= 70%). The rate of gastroesophageal reflux and other complications for POEM was significantly higher than for pneumatic dilation, with a risk ratio of 4.17 (95% CI, 1.52-11.45, P = 0.006, I= 61%) and 3.78 (95% CI, 1.41-10.16, P = 0.008, I= 0%). Our current evidence suggests that the long-term efficacy of POEM was superior to that of pneumatic dilation, but accompanied by higher complications.

Feasibility of using an led-probe in third-space endoscopy: a clinical study

BackgroundThird-space endoscopy is a novel, safe, and effective method for treating different gastrointestinal conditions. However, several failed endoscopic procedures are attributed to incomplete myotomy. Lighting devices are used to prevent organic injuries. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of using a hand-made LED-probe (LP) in third-space procedures.MethodsThis prospective study was conducted in a tertiary-care center in Mexico between December 2016 and January 2019. We included peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy(G-POEM) procedures. Pseudoachalasia, peptic ulcer, normal gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES) and prepyloric tumors were excluded. LP was used to guide or confirm procedures. Clinical and procedural characteristics were recorded and analyzed.ResultsSeventy third-space procedures were included (42POEM,28G-POEM), with an average patient age of 46.7 ± 14.3 and 43.7 ± 10.1 years, respectively. For the POEM and G-POEM groups, respectively, 18/42(42.9%) and 13/28(46.7%) patients were males; median procedure times were 50 (interquartile range [IQR]: 38–71) and 60(IQR: 48–77) min, median LP placement times were 5(IQR: 4-6) and 6(IQR: 5-7) min, mild adverse events occurred in 4(9.4%) and 4(14.2%) of cases, and clinical success at 6 months occurred in 100 and 85.7% of cases. Integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) improved from 27.3 ± 10.8 to 9.5 ± 4.1 mmHg (p < 0.001); retention percentage at 4 h also improved. LP was successfully placed and adequate myotomy confirmed including 14.2 and 17.8% of POEM and G-POEM difficult patients.ConclusionsUsing an LP is promising and allows guiding during third-space procedures either for submucosal tunnel creation or myotomy confirmation, with excellent safety and efficacy in clinical practice.

Endoscopic or Surgical Myotomy in Patients with Idiopathic Achalasia

BackgroundPneumatic dilation and laparoscopic Heller’s myotomy (LHM) are established treatments for idiopathic achalasia. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a less invasive therapy with promising early study results.MethodsIn a multicenter, randomized trial, we compared POEM with LHM plus Dor’s fundoplication in patients with symptomatic achalasia. The primary end point was clinical success, defined as an Eckardt symptom score of 3 or less (range, 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms of achalasia) without the use of additional treatments, at the 2-year follow-up; a noninferiority margin of −12.5 percentage points was used in the primary analysis. Secondary end points included adverse events, esophageal function, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score (range, 0 to 144, with higher scores indicating better function), and gastroesophageal reflux.ResultsA total of 221 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either POEM (112 patients) or LHM plus Dor’s fundoplication (109 patients). Clinical success at the 2-year follow-up was observed in 83.0% of patients in the POEM group and 81.7% of patients in the LHM group (difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −8.7 to 11.4; P=0.007 for noninferiority). Serious adverse events occurred in 2.7% of patients in the POEM group and 7.3% of patients in the LHM group. Improvement in esophageal function from baseline to 24 months, as assessed by measurement of the integrated relaxation pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter, did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (difference, −0.75 mm Hg; 95% CI, −2.26 to 0.76), nor did improvement in the score on the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (difference, 0.14 points; 95% CI, −4.01 to 4.28). At 3 months, 57% of patients in the POEM group and 20% of patients in the LHM group had reflux esophagitis, as assessed by endoscopy; at 24 months, the corresponding percentages were 44% and 29%.ConclusionsIn this randomized trial, POEM was noninferior to LHM plus Dor’s fundoplication in controlling symptoms of achalasia at 2 years. Gastroesophageal reflux was more common among patients who underwent POEM than among those who underwent LHM. (Funded by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01601678.)

O26 QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ACHALASIA PATIENTS IS THE SAME AFTER PER-ORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY (POEM) AND HELLER MYOTOMY

Abstract Aim This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LHM and POEM for esophageal achalasia. Background &amp; Methods Laparoscopic Heller’s myotomy (LHM) has been the gold standard of treatment, however per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) was recently established as a treatment option for achalasia. A prospective review was performed for all patients submitted to LHM or POEM in our institution from 10/2012 to 06/2018, and have completed a minimum follow up period of 6 months. The diagnostic work-up included gastroscopy, barium study and high-resolution manometry (HRM). All patients underwent a clinical evaluation 6 weeks after treatment and a surveillance gastroscopy in the 1st postoperative year. HRM and pH studies were offered to all patients after 6 months. Standardized questionnaires evaluating Eckardt, GERD and achalasia QoL (Urbach) scores were completed pre- and postoperatively. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 23.0. Repeated measurements analysis of variance was used to compare changes in mean values during follow up and between the two types of surgery. P values &lt; 0.05 were considered significant. Results Eighty patients (34 women and 46 men) with mean age 42.6 years (16.2) underwent POEM (n=39) or LHM (n=41). QoL score was significantly improved in both study groups (p&lt;0.001) with a similar degree of improvement (p=0.486). Eckardt scores showed a significant improvement in both groups, but repeated measurements analysis revealed a significant effect with time (p=0.038) with a greater improvement in POEM group. Moreover, Eckardt score change was similar between LHM and POEM patients without prior treatments (p=0.724), but in those with prior treatments the improvement trended higher in POEM group (p=0.087). GERD score had a similar and significant decrease in both groups (p=0.439), but in those with prior treatments the improvement was greater in LHM group (p=0.018). There was no significant difference regarding the complication rates for both groups (Clavien-Dindo I-IIIa). Conclusions POEM compares favorably with LHM as treatment for achalasia, as statistically significant improvement in QoL, GERD and Eckardt scores was recorded in both groups. In patients with prior treatments, POEM tends to achieve a greater improvement of Eckardt score and LHM a greater reduction regarding GERD score.