1. Peroral endoscopic myotomy: is it better to perform it in naive patients or as second-line therapy? Results of an open-label-controlled study in 105 patients
- Author
-
Raphael Olivier, Charlène Brochard, Stanislas Bruley des Varannes, Alain Ropert, Timothée Wallenhorst, Noémi Reboux, Lucille Quénéhervé, Emmanuel Coron, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes), Institut des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif, Université de Nantes (UN), Centre hospitalier universitaire de Poitiers (CHU Poitiers), CHU Pontchaillou [Rennes], Centre d'Investigation Clinique [Rennes] (CIC), Université de Rennes (UR)-Hôpital Pontchaillou-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest (CHRU Brest), Hôpital Universitaire de Genève = University Hospitals of Geneva (HUG), and Open access funding provided by University of Geneva. None.
- Subjects
Oesophagus ,[SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio] ,Achalasia ,Endoscopy ,Surgery ,Symptom score or index - Abstract
Background Whether Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) can be proposed as a second-line treatment in patients with achalasia remains to be confirmed in real-life series. Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy, feasibility and safety of POEM between treatment-naïve patients and patients who had prior endoscopic or surgical therapies for achalasia. Methods All consecutive patients who underwent a POEM procedure for achalasia in our centre from June 2015 to September 2018 were included in this retrospective study. They were classified into treatment-naïve patients (POEM1) and patients who had at least one previous endoscopic and/or surgical treatment for achalasia (POEM2). Results A total of 105 patients were included, 52 in the POEM1 group and 53 in the POEM2 group. Clinical success (defined as an Eckardt score ≤ 3) at 6 months was observed in 93% of POEM1 patients and 84% of POEM2 patients (p = 0.18). Technical success rate was not significantly different between the two groups (100% vs 96%, respectively; p = 0.50). No significant difference was noted in terms of adverse event rate (19% vs 19%, respectively; p = 1.00). Post-procedure pain occurred in 12% of treatment-naive and 9% of non-naïve patients (p = 0.76). The median length of hospital stay was 3 days in both groups (p = 0.17). Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux occurred in 25% of POEM1 patients and 16% of POEM2 patients (p = 0.24). Conclusion Efficacy, feasibility and safety of POEM are not different between treatment-naïve and non-naïve patients. POEM is a valuable second-line approach in patients with persistent symptoms of achalasia after surgical or endoscopic treatments.
- Published
- 2023