| Literature DB >> 31041369 |
Daisuke Watanabe1, Shinwa Tanaka1, Fumiaki Kawara1, Hirohumi Abe1, Ryusuke Ariyoshi1, Yoshiko Nakano1, Toshitatsu Takao1, Yoshinori Morita1, Takashi Toyonaga2, Eiji Umegaki1, Yuzo Kodama1.
Abstract
Background and study aims Previously, we reported that esophageal muscle layer thickness was associated with technical complexity of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). However, there are no data regarding the mid-term effects of POEM procedures on esophageal muscle layer thickness. Therefore, we conducted this study to elucidate mid-term effects of POEM procedures, and to examine whether postoperative changes in esophageal muscle layer thickness were related to particular clinico-pathological features in patients with esophageal motility disorders. Patients and methods Seventy-four consecutive patients with esophageal motility disorders who underwent POEM at Kobe University Hospital from April 2015 to December 2016 were prospectively recruited into this study. First, we investigated the esophageal muscle layer thickness values obtained at 1 year after POEM. Second, we evaluated the effects of a reduction in muscle layer thickness on various clinico-pathological features. Results At 1 year after POEM, mean thickness of the inner circular muscle at 0 cm, 5 cm, and 10 cm from the esophagogastric junction was 1.06 ± 0.45 mm, 0.99 ± 0.36 mm, and 0.97 ± 0.44 mm, respectively. Among all sites, muscle layer thickness had significantly decreased after POEM. However, univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that no clinical factors were associated with esophageal muscle layer thickness after POEM procedure. Conclusions We demonstrated for the first time that thickness of the esophageal muscle layer was significantly decreased after POEM. This result reveals that changes in esophageal muscle layer thickness caused by esophageal motility disorders are reversible.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31041369 PMCID: PMC6447396 DOI: 10.1055/a-0838-5268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Supplemental Fig. 1 Mean value of esophageal muscle layer thickness in patients without esophageal motility disorders. Assessment of the normal thickness of the esophageal muscle layer. To determine the thickness of the normal esophageal muscle layer, nine consecutive patients without esophageal motility disorders (8 patients with early gastric cancer and 1 patient with gastric submucosal tumor) underwent EUS examinations at Kobe University Hospital between April 2015 and December 2016 according to the procedure mentioned above.
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of patients included in the analysis.
Baseline characteristics of patients treated with POEM.
| Age, years old, mean ± SD (range), n | 52.0 ± 16.7 (16 – 85), n = 51 |
| Sex | |
Male, n (%) | 19/51 (37.3 %) |
Female, n (%) | 32/51 (62.7 %) |
| BMI, mean ± SD (range), n | 21.6 ± 4.1 (15.8 – 31.6), n = 51 |
| Duration of disease, years, mean ± SD (range), n | 6.6 ± 12.9 (0.5 – 31), n = 51 |
| Type of achalasia, n | |
Straight type (St), n (%) | 42/51 (82.4 %) |
Sigmoid type (Sg), n (%) | 4/51 (7.8 %) |
Advanced sigmoid type (A-Sg), n (%) | 2/51 (3.9 %) |
Others (JHE/DES/JHE + outflow), n (%) | 3/51 (5.9 %) |
| Previous treatment | |
Pneumatic dilation (PD), n (%) | 6/51 (11.8 %) |
Heller myotomy (HM), n (%) | 1/51 (2.0 %) |
No previous treatment, n (%) | 57/74 (86.3 %) |
| POEM procedure time, min, mean ± SD (range), n | 74.9 ± 29.1 (44 – 179), n = 51 |
| Length of myotomy, mm, mean ± SD (range), n | 13.9 ± 4.0 (5 – 20), n = 51 |
| Adverse events, n (%) | 11/51 (21.6 %) |
| Before POEM procedure | |
Eckardt score, mean ± SD (range), n | 5.9 ± 2.1 (2 – 10), n = 51 |
Integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), mmHg, mean ± SD (range), n | 29.4 ± 13.4 (2.3 – 75), n = 48 |
| After POEM procedure | |
Eckardt score, mean ± SD (range), n | 0.7 ± 1.0 (0 – 4), n = 50 |
Integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), mmHg, mean ± SD (range), n | 9.4 ± 5.4 (0.1 – 23.8), n = 48 |
POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy; SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; JHE, Jackhammer esophagus; DES, distal esophageal spasm; JHE + outflow, Jackhammer esophagus plus esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction
Comparison of esophageal muscle layer thickness values observed before and after POEM.
| Before POEM procedure | After POEM procedure |
| ||
| Inner circular muscle | 0 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 1.55 ± 0.54 | 1.06 ± 0.45 | < 0.0001 |
| 5 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 1.46 ± 0.75 | 0.99 ± 0.36 | < 0.0001 | |
| 10 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 1.31 ± 0.68 | 0.97 ± 0.44 | < 0.0001 | |
| Outer longitudinal muscle | 0 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 1.07 ± 0.35 | 0.89 ± 0.34 | 0.0069 |
| 5 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 0.65 ± 0.23 | 0.61 ± 0.19 | NS | |
| 10 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 0.60 ± 0.19 | 0.53 ± 0.14 | 0.0284 |
POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy; EGJ, esophagogastric junction; NS, not significant ( P > 0.05)
Fig. 2 Representative image of esophageal muscle layer thickness before and at 1 year after POEM.
Comparisons of IRP and the Eckardt score at 1 year after POEM between thick ( > 1.5 mm) and thin ( < 1.5 mm) esophageal muscle layer groups.
| 0 cm from EGJ | 5 cm from EGJ | 10 cm from EGJ | |||||||
| ≥ 1.5 mm | < 1.5 mm |
| ≥ 1.5 mm | < 1.5 mm |
| ≥ 1.5 mm | < 1.5 mm |
| |
| IRP after POEM, mean ± SD, mmHg | 10.2 | 8.4 | NS | 11.3 | 8.1 | NS | 7.7 | 10.1 | NS |
| Eckardt score after POEM, mean ± SD | 0.9 | 0.4 | NS | 0.7 | 0.7 | NS | 0.5 | 0.8 | NS |
IRP, integrated relaxation pressure; POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy, EGJ, esophagogastric junction; NS, not significant ( P > 0.05); SD, standard deviation
Comparison of ΔEMLT values between the inner circular and outer longitudinal muscle layers.
| Inner circular muscle | Outer longitudinal muscle |
| |
| 0 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 0.48 ± 0.52 | 0.18 ± 0.47 | 0.0003 |
| 5 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 0.47 ± 0.84 | 0.04 ± 0.30 | < 0.0001 |
| 10 cm from EGJ, mean ± SD, mm | 0.35 ± 0.59 | 0.07 ± 0.21 | < 0.0001 |
ΔEMLT, reduction in thickness of the esophageal muscle layer observed after procedure; SD, standard deviation
Univariate logistic regression analysis of clinical factors associated with a ΔEMLT value ≥ 0.45 mm.
| ΔEMLT at 0 cm from EGJ | ΔEMLT at 5 cm from EGJ | ΔEMLT at 10 cm from EGJ | ||||
| Variables | Odds ratio (95 % C. I.) |
Univariate
| Odds ratio (95 % C. I.) |
Univariate
| Odds ratio (95 % C. I.) |
Univariate
|
| Age, ≥ 52 vs. < 52 yr | 1.25 (0.41 – 3.81) | NS | 0.83 (0.26 – 2.65) | NS | 0.49 (0.14 – 1.58) | NS |
| Sex, male vs. female | 1.43 (0.46 – 4.54) | NS | 0.90 (0.28 – 3.01) | NS | 1.13 (0.34 – 3.98) | NS |
| BMI, ≥ 22 vs. < 22 | 0.48 (0.14 – 1.58) | NS | 1.00 (0.30 – 3.52) | NS | 0.41 (0.12 – 1.37) | NS |
| Duration of disease, ≥ 7 vs. < 7 years | 0.45 (0.12 – 1.53) | NS | 1.13 (0.32 – 4.29) | NS | 0.66 (0.19 – 2.38) | NS |
| Type of achalasia, St type vs. other types | 2.00 (0.46 – 10.48) | NS | 1.60 (0.35 – 7.00) | NS | 0.20 (0.01 – 1.26) | NS |
| Previous treatment, yes vs. no | 0.82 (0.15 – 4.15) | NS | 0.69 (0.13 – 3.88) | NS | 0.31 (0.06 – 1.61) | NS |
| Procedure time, ≥ 75 vs. < 75 | 0.66 (0.21 – 2.00) | NS | 0.59 (0.18 – 1.87) | NS | 1.43 (0.44 – 4.78) | NS |
| Length of myotomy, ≥ 14 vs. 14 mm | 0.69 (0.22 – 2.08) | NS | 0.68 (0.20 – 2.15) | NS | 0.55 (0.16 – 1.78) | NS |
| Adverse events, yes vs. no | 0.92 (0.23 – 3.55) | NS | 0.94 (0.24 – 4.11) | NS | 0.84 (0.21 – 3.69) | NS |
| Eckardt score after POEM, ≥ 1 vs. < 1 | 0.38 (0.11 – 1.21) | NS | 0.98 (0.30 – 3.31) | NS | 1.43 (0.43 – 5.03) | NS |
| ΔIRP, ≥ 20 vs. < 20 mmHg | 1.39 (0.43 – 4.59) | NS | 1.01 (0.30 – 3.49) | NS | 1.27 (0.37 – 4.60) | NS |
The cut-off value for the ΔEMLT was 0.45 mm. Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. EMLT, esophageal muscle layer thickness; EGJ, esophagogastric junction; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; NS, not significant ( P > 0.05); ΔIRP, postoperative change in integrated relaxation pressure