Feasibility and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia after failed endoscopic interventions

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Failed Previous Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a rescue treatment for recurrent or persistent achalasia after failed initial management. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of POEM in achalasia patients with failed previous intervention. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases using the queries “achalasia,” “peroral endoscopic myotomy,” and related terms in March 2019. Data on technical and clinical success, adverse events, Eckardt score and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure were collected. The pooled event rates, mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated. A total of 15 studies with 2,276 achalasia patients were included. Overall, the pooled technical success, clinical success and adverse events rate of rescue POEM were 98.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.6% to 98.8%), 90.8% (95% CI, 88.8% to 92.4%) and 10.3% (95% CI, 6.6% to 15.8%), respectively. Seven studies compared the clinical outcomes of POEM between previous failed treatment and the treatment naïve patients. The RR for technical success, clinical success, and adverse events were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.01), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.04), and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.76), respectively. Overall, there was significant reduction in the pre- and post-Eckardt score (MD, 5.77; p<0.001) and LES pressure (MD, 18.3 mm Hg; p<0.001) for achalasia patients with failed previous intervention after POEM. POEM appears to be a safe, effective and feasible treatment for individuals who have undergone previous failed intervention. It has similar outcomes in previously treated and treatment-naïve achalasia patients.

The Effect of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Prior Endoscopic Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been reported to be effective in achalasia patients with prior failed endoscopic intervention (PFI). We performed this meta-analysis to compare and summarize the clinical outcome of POEM in patients with or without prior endoscopic intervention.

METHOD

We searched relevant studies published up to March 2020. Meta-analysis for technical success, clinical success, Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, clinical reflux, and adverse event were conducted based on a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies enrolling 1,797 patients who underwent POEM were enrolled, including 1,128 naïve achalasia patients and 669 patients with PFI. In the PFI group, the pooled estimated rate of technical success was 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.8-98.8%), the pooled clinical success rate was 91.0% (95% CI, 88.0-93.4%), and the pooled adverse events rate was 23.5% (95% CI, 10.6-44.1%). The Eckardt score significantly decreased by 5.95 points (95% CI, 5.50-6.40, p < 0.00001) and the LES pressure significantly reduced by 19.74 mm Hg (95% CI, 14.10-25.39, p < 0.00001) in the PFI group. There were no difference in the technical success, clinical success, and adverse events rate between the treatment-naïve group and PFI group, with a risk ratio of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.99-1.01, p = 0.89), 1.02 (95% CI, 0.98-1.06, p = 0.36), and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.67-1.16, p = 0.38), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

POEM is an effective and safe treatment for achalasia patients with prior endoscopic intervention. Randomized clinical trials are needed to further verify the efficiency and safety of the POEM in those patients.

Efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy after prior sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass surgery

BACKGROUND

Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is safe and effective for the treatment of achalasia. There is limited data on performance of POEM in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, especially after bariatric surgery. Outcomes in patients with prior sleeve gastrectomy have not been reported.

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of POEM in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

METHODS

A prospective POEM database was reviewed from 3/2017-5/2020 to identify patients who underwent POEM after prior bariatric surgery. Efficacy was assessed by technical success (defined as the ability to successfully complete the procedure) and clinical success [decrease in Eckardt score (ES) to ≤ 3 post procedure]. Safety was evaluated by recording adverse events.

RESULTS

Six patients (50% male, mean age 48 years) with a history of prior bariatric surgery who underwent POEM were included. Three had prior sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and three prior Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Four patients had achalasia subtype II and 2 had type I. Most (4) patients had undergone previous achalasia therapy. Technical success was 100%. Clinical success was achieved in 4 (67%) patients at mean follow-up of 21 mo. In one of the clinical failures, EndoFLIP evaluation demonstrated adequate treatment and candida esophagitis was noted as the likely cause of dysphagia. There were no major adverse events.

CONCLUSION

POEM is technically feasible after both RYGB and SG and offers an effective treatment for this rare group of patients where surgical options for achalasia are limited.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy is highly effective for achalasia patients with recurrent symptoms after pneumatic dilatation

BACKGROUND

Previous interventions in achalasia such as pneumatic dilation (PD) might lead to difficulties with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) along with sub-optimal outcomes. There are limited data in the literature on outcomes of POEM after PD, especially from the western hemisphere. Hence, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of POEM for recurrent symptoms after PD compared to treatment naïve achalasia patients.

METHODS

Medical records of achalasia patients who underwent POEM at our institution between April 2014 and October 2019 were reviewed. Patients who had POEM for recurrent symptoms after prior PD were matched at 1:2 ratio with treatment naïve achalasia patients using propensity score matching. Patients who had prior Heller myotomy were excluded. Patient demographics, Eckardt scores, timed barium swallow (TBE), high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM), and pH study findings were compared between the two groups, pre- and 2 months post-POEM. Treatment success was defined as reduction of Eckardt score to ≤ 3.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients (prior PD = 13; treatment naïve = 26) were included. Patient demographics, procedural, and peri-procedural outcomes were similar in both groups. Treatment success was similar in both groups, 100.0% in prior PD vs 91.7% in treatment naïve group (p = 0.53). On adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference in the pre-post-POEM improvement in Eckardt scores, TBE, and HREM parameters in the two groups. Gastroesophageal reflux disease rates were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In achalasia with recurrent symptoms after PD, POEM is a safe and highly effective treatment modality. Prior PD does not seem to influence the outcomes or efficacy of POEM.

2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines

Esophageal achalasia is a primary motility disorder characterized by insufficient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and loss of esophageal peristalsis. Achalasia is a chronic disease that causes progressive irreversible loss of esophageal motor function. The recent development of high-resolution manometry has facilitated the diagnosis of achalasia, and determining the achalasia subtypes based on high-resolution manometry can be important when deciding on treatment methods. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is less invasive than surgery with comparable efficacy. The present guidelines (the "2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines") were developed based on evidence-based medicine; the Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association and Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility served as the operating and development committees, respectively. The development of the guidelines began in June 2018, and a draft consensus based on the Delphi process was achieved in April 2019. The guidelines consist of 18 recommendations: 2 pertaining to the definition and epidemiology of achalasia, 6 pertaining to diagnoses, and 10 pertaining to treatments. The endoscopic treatment section is based on the latest evidence from meta-analyses. Clinicians (including gastroenterologists, upper gastrointestinal tract surgeons, general physicians, nurses, and other hospital workers) and patients could use these guidelines to make an informed decision on the management of achalasia.