Saurabh Chandan1, Babu Pappu Mohan2, Ojasvini Choudhry Chandan3, Lokesh Kumar Jha4, Harmeet Singh Mashiana4, Alexander Todd Hewlett4, Mouen A Khashab5. 1. Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 982000 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA. s.chandan@unmc.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 3. Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 4. Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 982000 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: POEM has been successfully performed in patients with spastic esophageal disorders (SED), such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type 3 achalasia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate its efficacy in these patients and if total average myotomy length and prior medical or endoscopic treatments affected clinical success. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Google-Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Review were searched for studies on POEM in SED from 2008 to September 2018. Clinical success was determined by Eckardt score (≤ 3) at follow-up. Sub-group analysis was performed based on myotomy length and evaluates the effect of prior treatments on clinical success. RESULTS: 9 studies with 210 patients were included in the final analysis. We found that the pooled rate of clinical success for POEM was 89.6% (95% CI 83.5-93.1, 95% PI 83.4-93.7, I2 = 0%). In three studies (50 patients), where total myotomy length was < 10 cm, the pooled rate of clinical success was 91.1% (95% CI 79.5-96.4, I2 = 0%). In six studies (160 patients), the length was > 10 cms and the pooled rate of clinical success was 89.1% (95% CI 83.0-93.2, I2 = 0%). The difference between these results was not statistically significant (p = 0.69). Additionally, a meta-regression analysis showed that prior treatment status did not significantly affect the primary outcome (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: While it is well known that POEM is a safe and effective treatment for spastic esophageal disorders, we conclude that variation in total myotomy length and prior endoscopic or medical treatments did not have a significant effect on clinical success.
BACKGROUND: POEM has been successfully performed in patients with spastic esophageal disorders (SED), such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type 3 achalasia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate its efficacy in these patients and if total average myotomy length and prior medical or endoscopic treatments affected clinical success. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Google-Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Review were searched for studies on POEM in SED from 2008 to September 2018. Clinical success was determined by Eckardt score (≤ 3) at follow-up. Sub-group analysis was performed based on myotomy length and evaluates the effect of prior treatments on clinical success. RESULTS: 9 studies with 210 patients were included in the final analysis. We found that the pooled rate of clinical success for POEM was 89.6% (95% CI 83.5-93.1, 95% PI 83.4-93.7, I2 = 0%). In three studies (50 patients), where total myotomy length was < 10 cm, the pooled rate of clinical success was 91.1% (95% CI 79.5-96.4, I2 = 0%). In six studies (160 patients), the length was > 10 cms and the pooled rate of clinical success was 89.1% (95% CI 83.0-93.2, I2 = 0%). The difference between these results was not statistically significant (p = 0.69). Additionally, a meta-regression analysis showed that prior treatment status did not significantly affect the primary outcome (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: While it is well known that POEM is a safe and effective treatment for spastic esophageal disorders, we conclude that variation in total myotomy length and prior endoscopic or medical treatments did not have a significant effect on clinical success.
Authors: H Inoue; H Minami; Y Kobayashi; Y Sato; M Kaga; M Suzuki; H Satodate; N Odaka; H Itoh; S Kudo Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Mouen A Khashab; Ahmed A Messallam; Manabu Onimaru; Ezra N Teitelbaum; Michael B Ujiki; Matthew E Gitelis; Rani J Modayil; Eric S Hungness; Stavros N Stavropoulos; Mohamad H El Zein; Hironari Shiwaku; Rastislav Kunda; Alessandro Repici; Hitomi Minami; Philip W Chiu; Jeffrey Ponsky; Vivek Kumbhari; Payal Saxena; Amit P Maydeo; Haruhiro Inoue Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; James Woodcock; Jan Brozek; Mark Helfand; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Elie A Akl; Susan Norris; Gunn Vist; Philipp Dahm; Vijay K Shukla; Julian Higgins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-31 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Mouen A Khashab; Pietro Familiari; Peter V Draganov; Hanaa Dakour Aridi; Joo Young Cho; Michael Ujiki; Ricardo Rio Tinto; Hubert Louis; Pankaj N Desai; Vic Velanovich; Eduardo Albéniz; Amyn Haji; Jeffrey Marks; Guido Costamagna; Jacques Devière; Yaseen Perbtani; Mason Hedberg; Fermin Estremera; Luis A Martin Del Campo; Dennis Yang; Majidah Bukhari; Olaya Brewer; Omid Sanaei; Lea Fayad; Amol Agarwal; Vivek Kumbhari; Yen-I Chen Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2018-08-10
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