Lava Y. Patel

Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Treatment of Achalasia After Failed Heller Myotomy

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with persistent symptoms after Heller myotomy (HM), treatment options include repeat HM, pneumatic dilation, or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM in patients with achalasia with prior HM vs without prior HM. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 180 patients with achalasia who underwent POEM at 13 tertiary centers worldwide, from December 2009 through September 2015. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with prior HM (HM group, exposure; n = 90) and those without prior HM (non‐HM group; n = 90). Clinical response was defined by a decrease in Eckardt scores to 3 or less. Adverse events were graded according to criteria set by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Technical success, clinical success, and rates of adverse events were compared between groups. Patients were followed up for a median of 8.5 months. RESULTS: POEM was technically successful in 98% of patients in the HM group and in 100% of patients in the non‐HM group (P = .49). A significantly lower proportion of patients in the HM group had a clinical response to POEM (81%) than in the non‐HM group (94%; P = .01). There were no significant differences in rates of adverse events between the groups (8% in the HM group vs 13% in the non‐HM group; P = .23). Symptomatic reflux and reflux esophagitis after POEM were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is safe and effective for patients with achalasia who were not treated successfully by prior HM. Although the rate of clinical success in patients with prior HM is lower than in those without prior HM, the safety profile of POEM is comparable between groups.

Comprehensive Analysis of Adverse Events Associated with per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy in 1826 Patients: An International Multicenter Study

Objectives:The safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is still debated since comprehensive analysis of adverse events (AEs) associated with the procedure in large multicenter cohort studies has not been performed. To study (1) the prevalence of AEs and (2) factors associated with occurrence of AEs in patients undergoing POEM.Methods:Patients who underwent POEM at 12 tertiary-care centers between 2009 and 2015 were included in this case–control study. Cases were defined by the occurrence of any AE related to the POEM procedure. Control patients were selected for each AE case by matching for age, gender, and disease classification (achalasia type I and II vs. type III/spastic esophageal disorders).Results:A total of 1,826 patients underwent POEM. Overall, 156 AEs occurred in 137 patients (7.5%). A total of 51 (2.8%) inadvertent mucosotomies occurred. Mild, moderate, and severe AEs had a frequency of 116 (6.4%), 31 (1.7%), and 9 (0.5%), respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sigmoid-type esophagus (odds ratio (OR) 2.28, P=0.05), endoscopist experience <20 cases (OR 1.98, P=0.04), use of a triangular tip knife (OR 3.22, P=0.05), and use of an electrosurgical current different than spray coagulation (OR 3.09, P=0.02) were significantly associated with the occurrence of AEs.Conclusions:This large study comprehensively assessed the safety of POEM and highly suggests POEM as a relatively safe procedure when performed by experts at tertiary centers with an overall 7.5% prevalence of AEs. Severe AEs are rare. Sigmoid-type esophagus, endoscopist experience, type of knife, and current used can be considered as predictive factors of AE occurrence.