471 the Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Versus Pneumatic Dilation in the Treatment of 3,844 Achalasia Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ofosu, Andrew; Masadeh, Maen; John, Febin; Meybodi, Mohamad Aghaie; Ramai, Daryl; Hajiyeva, Gulara; Barakat, Mohamed; Ichkhanian, Yervant; Vosoughi, Kia; Gutierrez, Olaya I. Brewer; Yang, Juliana; Runge, Thomas M.; Parsa, Nasim; Assis, Daniella; AbiMansour, Jad P.; Sloan, Joshua A.; Kalloo, Anthony N.; Kumbhari, Vivek; Khashab, Mouen A.

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.064

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that the overall technical success rate for POEM after failed HM was 97% (94-99%) comparable to the reported rate of 98% in patients without prior HM [ 28 ]. The overall clinical success rate for POEM after failed HM was 87% (81-91%), equivalent to the figure of 86.9% for repeat HM.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy in the management of recurrent achalasia after failed Heller myotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kamal

Ismail

Khan

et al. 2020

aog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Heller myotomy (HM) is an established treatment for achalasia but can fail in up to 10-20% of patients. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may be an appropriate treatment for patients with failed HM. Methods We searched several databases to identify non-comparative studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of POEM after failed HM and comparative studies comparing the efficacy and/or safety of POEM in patients with and without prior HM. Outcomes assessed included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, post-treatment gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and presence of esophagitis on endoscopy. We calculated weighted pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes in patients undergoing POEM with prior HM. We calculated pooled odds ratios with 95%CI to compare the outcomes between patients with and without previous HM who underwent POEM. Results We included 11 observational studies with 1205 patients. Weighted pooled rates (95%CI) for overall clinical success and technical success in patients with failed HM were 87% (81-91%) and 97% (94-99%), respectively. Weighted pooled rates (95%CI) for major adverse events, new-onset GERD and presence of esophagitis on endoscopy were 5% (2-10%), 33% (26-41%), and 38% (22-58%), respectively. There were no differences in clinical success, adverse events, post-treatment GERD and esophagitis between patients with and without previous HM. Conclusions POEM is safe and effective in patients with failed HM and should be considered in patients with recurrent achalasia after HM. Outcomes of POEM are comparable in patients with and without prior HM.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%