Peroral endoscopic myotomy in the endoscopy unit: location, location, location

Anesthetic Consideration for Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy

A recent achalasia guideline suggests that peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a safe option for achalasia that is as effective as Heller myotomy. It is recommended that POEM should be performed under general anesthesia. The incidence of adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, and carbon dioxide insufflation-related complications was lower in POEM under endotracheal general anesthesia than in POEM under sedation. Subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum, and accompanying hemodynamic instability can be caused by carbon dioxide insufflation. Treatment of possible physiological changes and adverse events during the POEM procedure from the point of view of anesthesiologists may give endoscopists a new perspective on improving patient safety. The territory of therapeutic endoscopy can be expanded through cooperation with other departments, including anesthesia services. Efforts to understand different perspectives will certainly help not only secure patient safety but also expand the area of treatment.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy achieves similar clinical response but incurs lesser charges compared to robotic heller myotomy

BACKGROUND/AIM

Several uncontrolled studies comparing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and Heller myotomy have demonstrated equivalent short-term efficacy and safety. However, no data exists rergarding the cost of POEM and how it compares to that of robotic Heller myotomy (RHM). The primary aim of this study was to compare the inpatient charges incurred in patients who underwent POEM or RHM for the treatment of achalasia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective single center review was conducted among 52 consecutive POEM patients (2012-2014) and 52 consecutive RHM patients (2009-2014). All RHM procedures included a Toupet fundoplication and were performed via a transabdominal approach. All POEM procedures were performed by a gastroenterologist in the endoscopy unit. Clinical response was defined by improvement of symptoms and decrease in Eckardt stage to ≤I. All procedural and facility charges were obtained from review of the hospital finance records.

RESULTS

There was no difference between POEM and RHM with regards to age, gender, symptom duration, achalasia subtype, manometry findings, or Eckardt symptom stage. There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events (19.2% vs 9.6%, P = 0.26) or the length of stay (1.9 vs. 2.3, P = 0.18) between both groups. Clinical response rate of patients in the POEM groups was similar to that in the RHM group (94.3% vs. 88.5%, P = 0.48). POEM incurred significantly less total charges compared to LHM ($14481 vs. $17782, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

POEM when performed in an endoscopy unit was similar in efficacy and safety to RHM. However, POEM was associated with significant cost savings ($3301/procedure).