Anne P Ehlers1, Brant K Oelschlager2, Carlos A Pellegrini2, Andrew S Wright2, Michael D Saunders3, David R Flum2, Hao He4, Farhood Farjah5. 1. Division of General Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: apugel@uw.edu. 2. Division of General Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 5. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials show that pneumatic dilation (PD) ≥30 mm and laparoscopic myotomy (LM) provide equivalent symptom relief and disease-related quality of life for patients with achalasia. However, questions remain about the safety, burden, and costs of treatment options. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of achalasia patients initially treated with PD or LM (2009 to 2014) using the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. All patients had 1 year of follow-up after initial treatment. We compared safety, health care use, and total and out-of-pocket costs using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Among 1,061 patients, 82% were treated with LM. The LM patients were younger (median age 49 vs 52 years; p < 0.01), but were similar in terms of sex (p = 0.80) and prevalence of comorbid conditions (p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in the 1-year cumulative risk of esophageal perforation (LM 0.8% vs PD 1.6%; p = 0.32) or 30-day mortality (LM 0.3% vs PD 0.5%; p = 0.71). Laparoscopic myotomy was associated with an 82% lower rate of reintervention (p < 0.01), a 29% lower rate of subsequent diagnostic testing (p < 0.01), and a 53% lower rate of readmission (p < 0.01). Total and out-of-pocket costs were not significantly different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the US, LM appears to be the preferred treatment for achalasia. Both LM and PD appear to be safe interventions. Along a short time horizon, the costs of LM and PD were not different. Mirroring findings from randomized trials, LM is associated with fewer reinterventions, less diagnostic testing, and fewer hospitalizations.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials show that pneumatic dilation (PD) ≥30 mm and laparoscopic myotomy (LM) provide equivalent symptom relief and disease-related quality of life for patients with achalasia. However, questions remain about the safety, burden, and costs of treatment options. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of achalasiapatients initially treated with PD or LM (2009 to 2014) using the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. All patients had 1 year of follow-up after initial treatment. We compared safety, health care use, and total and out-of-pocket costs using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Among 1,061 patients, 82% were treated with LM. The LMpatients were younger (median age 49 vs 52 years; p < 0.01), but were similar in terms of sex (p = 0.80) and prevalence of comorbid conditions (p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in the 1-year cumulative risk of esophageal perforation (LM 0.8% vs PD 1.6%; p = 0.32) or 30-day mortality (LM 0.3% vs PD 0.5%; p = 0.71). Laparoscopic myotomy was associated with an 82% lower rate of reintervention (p < 0.01), a 29% lower rate of subsequent diagnostic testing (p < 0.01), and a 53% lower rate of readmission (p < 0.01). Total and out-of-pocket costs were not significantly different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the US, LM appears to be the preferred treatment for achalasia. Both LM and PD appear to be safe interventions. Along a short time horizon, the costs of LM and PD were not different. Mirroring findings from randomized trials, LM is associated with fewer reinterventions, less diagnostic testing, and fewer hospitalizations.
Authors: Guy E Boeckxstaens; Vito Annese; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Stanislas Chaussade; Mario Costantini; Antonello Cuttitta; J Ignasi Elizalde; Uberto Fumagalli; Marianne Gaudric; Wout O Rohof; André J Smout; Jan Tack; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Giovanni Zaninotto; Olivier R Busch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vlad V Simianu; Alessandro Fichera; Amir L Bastawrous; Giana H Davidson; Michael G Florence; Richard C Thirlby; David R Flum Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Kaveh Farhoomand; Jason T Connor; Joel E Richter; Edgar Achkar; Michael F Vaezi Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Guilherme M Campos; Eric Vittinghoff; Charlotte Rabl; Mark Takata; Michael Gadenstätter; Feng Lin; Ruxandra Ciovica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Antonio Cubisino; Francisco Schlottmann; Nicolas H Dreifuss; Carolina Baz; Alberto Mangano; Mario A Masrur; Francesco M Bianco; Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Jocelyn de Heer; Madhav Desai; Guy Boeckxstaens; Giovanni Zaninotto; Karl-Hermann Fuchs; Prateek Sharma; Guido Schachschal; Oliver Mann; Thomas Rösch; Yuki Werner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Charles E Gaber; Swathi Eluri; Cary C Cotton; Paula D Strassle; Timothy M Farrell; Jennifer L Lund; Evan S Dellon Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; José Jukemura; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Galileu Ferreira Ayala Farias; Aureo Augusto de Almeida Delgado; Lara Meireles Azeredo Coutinho; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Rubens Antonio Aissar Sallum; Ary Nasi; Sergio A Sánchez-Luna; Paulo Sakai; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 5.374