Chanakyaram A Reddy1, Anna Tavakkoli2, Mustafa Abdul-Hussein3, Erik Almazan4, Kia Vosoughi5, Yervant Ichkhanian5, Mahmoud Al-Hawary6, Andrew C Chang7, Joan W Chen1, Sheryl Korsnes1, B Joseph Elmunzer3, Mouen A Khashab5, Ryan Law1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 7. Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is unclear whether the common practice of postoperative day (POD) 1 esophagram impacts clinical care or reliably identifies significant adverse events (AEs) related to peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Therefore, we aimed to correlate the most clinically relevant esophagram findings with postoperative outcomes after POEM. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively reviewed and included if they underwent POEM at 1 of the 3 study institutions between 2014 and 2018. Patient outcomes were assessed in relation to relevant POD 1 esophagram findings such as esophageal dissection or leak. RESULTS: One hundred seventy post-POEM contrast esophagrams (139 fluoroscopy-based vs 31 CT-based) performed on POD 1 were included. Most esophagrams (n = 98) contained abnormal findings but only 5 showed esophageal leak or dissection. Confirmed postoperative AEs of leak or dissection occurred in 4 patients. In 2 patients, POD 1 esophagram appropriately identified the leak or dissection, but in the other 2 patients the initial esophagram was negative, and the AEs were not recognized before clinical deterioration. One patient had a false-positive leak and dissection noted on esophagram leading to an unremarkable endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the low AE rate after POEM, follow-up esophagram on POD 1 frequently shows expected, unremarkable postprocedural findings and occasionally fails to diagnose serious AEs. This results in pitfalls in accuracy regarding agreement between esophagram versus clinical and endoscopic findings. Relying exclusively on esophagram for post-POEM clinical decision-making can lead to unnecessary additional testing or missed AEs.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is unclear whether the common practice of postoperative day (POD) 1 esophagram impacts clinical care or reliably identifies significant adverse events (AEs) related to peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Therefore, we aimed to correlate the most clinically relevant esophagram findings with postoperative outcomes after POEM. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively reviewed and included if they underwent POEM at 1 of the 3 study institutions between 2014 and 2018. Patient outcomes were assessed in relation to relevant POD 1 esophagram findings such as esophageal dissection or leak. RESULTS: One hundred seventy post-POEM contrast esophagrams (139 fluoroscopy-based vs 31 CT-based) performed on POD 1 were included. Most esophagrams (n = 98) contained abnormal findings but only 5 showed esophageal leak or dissection. Confirmed postoperative AEs of leak or dissection occurred in 4 patients. In 2 patients, POD 1 esophagram appropriately identified the leak or dissection, but in the other 2 patients the initial esophagram was negative, and the AEs were not recognized before clinical deterioration. One patient had a false-positive leak and dissection noted on esophagram leading to an unremarkable endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the low AE rate after POEM, follow-up esophagram on POD 1 frequently shows expected, unremarkable postprocedural findings and occasionally fails to diagnose serious AEs. This results in pitfalls in accuracy regarding agreement between esophagram versus clinical and endoscopic findings. Relying exclusively on esophagram for post-POEM clinical decision-making can lead to unnecessary additional testing or missed AEs.
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ezra N Teitelbaum; Christy M Dunst; Kevin M Reavis; Ahmed M Sharata; Marc A Ward; Steven R DeMeester; Lee L Swanström Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Fraukje A Ponds; Paul Fockens; Aaltje Lei; Horst Neuhaus; Torsten Beyna; Jennis Kandler; Thomas Frieling; Philip W Y Chiu; Justin C Y Wu; Vivien W Y Wong; Guido Costamagna; Pietro Familiari; Peter J Kahrilas; John E Pandolfino; André J P M Smout; Albert J Bredenoord Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shannon Melissa Chan; Justin Che Yuen Wu; Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Hon Chi Yip; Enders Kwok Wai Ng; James Yun Wong Lau; Philip Wai Yan Chiu Journal: Dig Endosc Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 7.559
Authors: P J Kahrilas; A J Bredenoord; M Fox; C P Gyawali; S Roman; A J P M Smout; J E Pandolfino Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Amy Tyberg; Stefan Seewald; Reem Z Sharaiha; Guadalupe Martinez; Amit P Desai; Nikhil A Kumta; Arnon Lambroza; Amrita Sethi; Kevin M Reavis; Ketisha DeRoche; Monica Gaidhane; Michael Talbot; Payal Saxena; Felipe Zamarripa; Maximilien Barret; Nicholas Eleftheriadis; Valerio Balassone; Haruhiro Inoue; Michel Kahaleh Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Neil H Bhayani; Ashwin A Kurian; Christy M Dunst; Ahmed M Sharata; Erwin Rieder; Lee L Swanstrom Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 12.969