| Literature DB >> 26416381 |
Hironari Shiwaku1, Haruhiro Inoue2, Takamitsu Sasaki3, Kanefumi Yamashita3, Toshihiro Ohmiya3, Shinsuke Takeno3, Satoshi Nimura4, Yuichi Yamashita3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an emerging, minimally invasive procedure capable of overcoming limitations of achalasia treatments, but gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after POEM is of concern and its risk factors have not been evaluated. This prospective study examined GERD and the association of POEM with reflux esophagitis.Entities:
Keywords: Achalasia; GERD; POEM
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26416381 PMCID: PMC4887532 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4507-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 4.584
Patient demographics and perioperative characteristics
| Age [years, mean ± SD (range)] | 48.8 ± 18.8 (17–86) |
| Sex | |
| Men | 41 |
| Women | 29 |
| Type of achalasia | |
| Straight type | 64 |
| Sigmoid type | 6 |
| Chicago classification | |
| Type I | 6 |
| Type II | 55 |
| Type III | 9 |
| Primary procedure, | 14 |
| Balloon dilatation | 14 |
| Length of procedure (range), minutes | 148.6 ± 45.9 (75–345) |
| Myotomy length, mean (range), cm | |
| Total | 12.6 ± 4.3(5–26) |
| Esophageal | 10.0 ± 4.0 (3–23) |
| Gastric | 2.6 ± 1.0 (1–5) |
| Postoperative stay, mean ± SD (range), days | 7.3 ± 2.5 (3–21) |
SD standard deviation
Fig. 1Results of postoperative reflux esophagitis. Endoscopic finding at 3 months after POEM showed that 84 % of the patients are classified as grade N or A, with 12 % in grade B, and 4 % in grade C
Patient demographics stratified by the presence or absence of reflux esophagitis ≥grade B
|
| GERD grade N/A |
| GERD grade B/C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Sex (M/F) | 59 | (25/34) | 11 | (4/7) |
| Age (years) | 59 | 48.2 ± 19.1 | 11 | 51.7 ± 17.8 |
| 43.0 (33.0, 62.0) | 51.0 (40.0, 66.0) | |||
| BMI (before POEM; kg/m2) | 59 | 20.6 ± 3.27 | 11 | 21.1 ± 3.6 |
| 19.9 (18.4, 22.9) | 20.8 (18.5, 22.5) | |||
| Degree of dilatation | ||||
| I | 33 | 6 | ||
| II | 24 | 5 | ||
| III | 2 | 0 | ||
| Type | ||||
| Straight | 53 | 11 | ||
| Sigmoid | 6 | 0 | ||
| Chicago classification | ||||
| Type I | 4 | 2 | ||
| Type II | 48 | 7 | ||
| Type III | 7 | 2 | ||
| Primary procedure | ||||
| None | 48 | 8 | ||
| Balloon dilatation | 11 | 3 | ||
| Hiatal hernia | ||||
| None | 58 | 10 | ||
| Present | 1 | 1 | ||
| Eckardt score | 59 | 5.7 ± 2.4 | 11 | 5.6 ± 3.2 |
| 6.0 (3.0, 7.0) | 5.0 (3.0, 9.0) | |||
| Mean LES pressure | 53 | 40.7 ± 23.7 | 8 | 35.3 ± 15.8 |
| 38.4 (22.8, 53.4) | 43.0 (20.7, 46.8) | |||
| LES residual pressure | 47 | 22.6 ± 13.1 | 8 | 19.0 ± 14.9 |
| 21.2(12.7,29.7) | 13.5(6.9, 35.3) | |||
| IRP | 47 | 35.1 ± 14.7 | 8 | 32.5 ± 23.6 |
| 34.0 (23.0, 45.0) | 21.00 (18.3, 52.3) | |||
|
| ||||
| Length of procedure | 59 | 148.7 ± 49.6 | 11 | 148.2 ± 17.4 |
| 140.0(120.0, 165.0) | 150.0 (130.0, 160.0) | |||
| Length of myotomy: total | 59 | 12.3 ± 4.3 | 11 | 13.7 ± 4.1 |
| 13.0(9.0, 15.0) | 13.0(10.0, 17.0) | |||
| Length of myotomy: esophageal | 59 | 9.8 ± 4.0 | 11 | 11.2 ± 3.6 |
| 10.0(7.0, 12.0) | 12.0 (8.0, 14.0) | |||
| Length of myotomy: gastric | 59 | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 11 | 2.5 ± 1.0 |
| 3.0(2.00, 3.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 3.0) | |||
| Postoperative stay, days | 59 | 7.2 ± 2.5 | 11 | 7.9 ± 2.3 |
| 7.0(6.00, 7.00) | 7.0 (6.0, 9.0) | |||
| Mucosal injury (yes/no) | 4/55 | 0/11 | ||
|
| ||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 59 | 21.7 ± 3.2 | 11 | 21.9 ± 3.6 |
| 21.4 (19.7, 23.5) | 20.6 (18.9, 25.4) | |||
| Eckardt score | 59 | 0.7 ± 0.86 | 11 | 0.7 ± 0.8 |
| 0.00 (0.00, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.0, 1.0) | |||
| Mean LES pressure | 49 | 20.8 ± 14.3 | 9 | 20.4 ± 13.1 |
| 19.5 (13.7, 24.9) | 18.7 (7.3, 31.9) | |||
| LES residual pressure | 38 | 12.0 ± 6.2 | 9 | 8.6 ± 8.1 |
| 12.5(7.8,15.6) | 7.7(0.8, 17.2) | |||
| IRP | 44 | 16.3 ± 7.4 | 8 | 9.5 ± 4.8 |
| 15.0(12.0,19.8) | 8.0 (6.3, 11.0) | |||
BMI body mass index, GERD gastroesophageal reflux disease, IRP integrated relaxation pressure, LES lower esophageal sphincter, POEM peroral endoscopic myotomy, SD standard deviation
Fig. 2A–C The mean preoperative and postoperative LES pressures are 40.0 ± 22.8 and 20.7 ± 14.0 mmHg, respectively, indicating a statistically significant decrease after POEM. The mean preoperative and postoperative LES residual pressures are 22.1 ± 13.3 and 11.4 ± 6.6 mmHg. The Eckardt score significantly decreased from 5.7 ± 2.5 preoperatively to 0.7 ± 0.8 postoperatively
Fig. 3Relationship between endoscopic findings of reflux esophagitis and result of 24-h pH monitoring. The correlation between the results of 24-h pH monitoring and endoscopy is nearly positive (correlation coefficient = 0.489)
Result of logistic regression analysis for erosive gastritis Los Angeles classification: grade B/C
| Univariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95 % CI |
| |
|
| |||
| Men (vs. women) | 0.777 | 0.205–2.946 | 0.711 |
| Age | 1.010 | 0.976–1.045 | 0.570 |
| BMI | 1.046 | 0.865–1.266 | 0.640 |
| Degree of dilatation | |||
| I | 1.000 | Ref | |
| II | 1.146 | 0.313–4.196 | 0.837 |
| III | n.c. | ||
| Sigmoid type (vs. straight type) | n.c. | ||
| Chicago classification | |||
| Type I | 1.000 | Ref | |
| Type II | 0.292 | 0.045–1.899 | 0.197 |
| Type III | 0.571 | 0.057–5.775 | 0.635 |
| Primary procedure (vs. no primary procedure) | 2.022 | 0.512–7.990 | 0.315 |
| Primary procedure | |||
| None | 1.000 | Ref | |
| Balloon dilatation | 1.792 | 0.398–8.064 | 0.447 |
| Hiatal hernia (vs. no hiatal hernia) | 5.800 | 0.335–100.459 | 0.227 |
| Eckardt score | 0.996 | 0.768–1.292 | 0.976 |
| Mean LES pressure | 0.988 | 0.952–1.026 | 0.534 |
| LES residual pressure | 0.978 | 0.920–1.040 | 0.478 |
| IRP | 0.989 | 0.942–1.039 | 0.663 |
|
| |||
| Length of procedure | 1.000 | 0.986–1.014 | 0.974 |
| Length of myotomy: total | 1.079 | 0.928–1.254 | 0.323 |
| Length of myotomy: esophageal | 1.092 | 0.930–1.282 | 0.283 |
| Length of myotomy: gastric | 0.987 | 0.530–1.839 | 0.968 |
| Postoperative stay, days | 1.102 | 0.889–1.366 | 0.374 |
| Mucosal injury | n.c. | ||
|
| |||
| BMI | 1.017 | 0.834–1.240 | 0.869 |
| Eckardt score | 1.071 | 0.504–2.275 | 0.858 |
| Mean LES pressure | 0.998 | 0.947–1.052 | 0.938 |
| LES residual pressure | 0.918 | 0.812–1.039 | 0.175 |
| IRP | 0.808 | 0.673–0.969 | 0.021 |
BMI body mass index, GERD gastroesophageal reflux disease, IRP integrated relaxation pressure, LES lower esophageal sphincter, POEM peroral endoscopic myotomy, SD standard deviation, n.c. not calculated