| Literature DB >> 34946392 |
Jun Nakamura1,2, Takuto Hikichi1, Minami Hashimoto1,2, Mika Takasumi2, Tsunetaka Kato1,2, Ryoichiro Kobashi1,2, Takumi Yanagita2, Rei Suzuki2, Mitsuru Sugimoto2, Yuki Sato2, Hiroki Irie2, Tadayuki Takagi2, Masao Kobayakawa1,3, Hiromasa Ohira2.
Abstract
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has become a popular treatment for esophageal achalasia and other esophageal motility disorders. However, its efficacy and safety in elderly patients are unclear. To clarify that, we reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent POEM in our hospital. A total of 11 patients who underwent POEM for esophageal achalasia (n = 10) and jackhammer esophagus (n = 1) were included. Procedural success, defined as the completion of an esophageal and gastric myotomy, was 100%. Clinical success, defined as an Eckardt score of 3 or less, without the use of additional treatments at 2 months, was 100%. The median Eckardt score significantly decreased after the POEM (baseline vs. 2 months after POEM; 7 (2-8) vs. 0 (0-1), p < 0.01). In the second and third years, the cumulative treatment effect maintenance rate was 88.9%. All patients taking antithrombotic agents had safe operations with the temporary discontinuation of these agents. There were four adverse events (two pneumoperitoneum, one mucosal injury, and one pneumonia), all of which improved with fasting or antibiotics. In conclusion, POEM is an effective and safe treatment for esophageal achalasia and achalasia-related diseases in patients aged 75 years and over.Entities:
Keywords: elderly people; esophageal achalasia; gastroesophageal reflux disease; jackhammer esophagus; peroral endoscopic myotomy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34946392 PMCID: PMC8700855 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9121668
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Flow diagram of patient enrollment.
Patient characteristics.
| Case | Age | Sex | BMI (kg/m2) | ASA-PS | Diagnosis | Chicago Classification | Duration of Symptoms, (Years) | Dilatation Grade | Esophago Graphy | Previous Treatment | Eckardt Score | Comorbidity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 2 Months after POEM | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 77 | M | 26.7 | II | Achalasia | Type I | 7 | I | Sg | None | 8 | 1 | Af, AP |
| 2 | 85 | F | 19.8 | II | Achalasia | N/A | 6 | II | Sg | PD | 2 | 0 | HT |
| 3 | 81 | F | 24.0 | II | Achalasia | Type I | 5 | II | Sg | PD | 7 | 1 | HT, CRF |
| 4 | 75 | M | 24.8 | II | Achalasia | Type II | 2 | I | Sg | None | 6 | 0 | HT |
| 5 | 87 | M | 24.8 | II | Achalasia | N/A | 40 | II | Sg | PD | 7 | 1 | Af, CRF |
| 6 | 85 | F | 25.3 | II | Achalasia | Type I | 6 | II | Sg | None | 5 | 0 | HT, Lacunar infarction |
| 7 | 77 | M | 23.6 | II | Achalasia | Type II | 2 | I | St | None | 5 | 1 | Dyslipidemia |
| 8 | 86 | F | 28.6 | II | Achalasia | N/A | 3 | I | St | PD | 7 | 0 | CSA, SAS |
| 9 | 75 | M | 21.2 | III | JE | JE | 5 | I | St | PD | 8 | 0 | Af, CHF |
| 10 | 76 | M | 18.5 | II | Achalasia | N/A | 20 | I | Sg | None | 5 | 0 | None |
| 11 | 83 | M | 21.5 | II | Achalasia | Type I | 3 | I | St | None | 8 | 0 | DM, CRF, OMI |
BMI: body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared); ASA-PS: American Society of Anesthesiology physical status; POEM: peroral endoscopic myotomy; M: male; F: female; JE: jackhammer esophagus; N/A: not applicable. In Cases 2, 5, 8, and 10, the catheter for high-resolution manometry could not pass through the esophagogastric junction; hence, the integrated relaxation pressure could not be measured. Sg: sigmoid type; St: straight type; PD: pneumatic dilation; Af: atrial fibrillation; AP: angina pectoris; HT: hypertension; CRF: chronic renal failure; CAS: coronary spastic angina; SAS: sleep apnea syndrome; CHF: chronic heart failure; DM: diabetes mellitus; OMI: old myocardial infarction.
Clinical outcomes of POEM.
| Clinical success, | 11 (100) | |
| Procedure time *, min | 109 (62–144) | |
| Direction of myotomy | Posterior side | 11 (100) |
| Myotomy length *, cm | Total | 13 (8–19) |
| Esophageal side | 10 (5–16) | |
| Gastric side | 3 (2–3) | |
| Eckardt score 2 months after POEM * | 0 (0–1) | |
| Adverse events †, | Total | 3 (27.3) |
| Pneumoperitoneum | 2 (18.2) | |
| Mucosal injury without perforation | 1 (9.1) | |
| Pneumonia | 1 (9.1) |
* Data are shown as median (range). † In one case, both pneumoperitoneum and mucosal injury were seen. POEM: peroral endoscopic myotomy.
Perioperative management of the patients taking antithrombotic drugs.
| Case | Antithrombotic Agents | Perioperative Management | Antithrombotic Resumption | Adverse Events |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rivaroxaban | Discontinued on the day before POEM with heparin bridging | Next day | None |
| 5 | Rivaroxaban | Discontinued on the day before POEM with heparin bridging | Next day | None |
| 6 | Aspirin | Discontinued on the day before POEM | Next day | None |
| 9 | Rivaroxaban | Discontinued on the day before POEM | Next day | None |
Af: atrial fibrillation; AP: angina pectoris; CHF: chronic heart failure; DM: diabetes mellitus; OMI: old myocardial infarction; POEM: peroral endoscopic myotomy.
GERD after POEM.
| Reflux Esophagitis, | |
|---|---|
| Grade A | 2 (18.2) |
| Grade D | 1 (9) |
| Symptomatic GERD, | 1 (9) |
GERD: gastroesophageal reflux disease; POEM: peroral endoscopic myotomy.
Figure 2Cumulative treatment effect maintenance rate. The cumulative treatment effect maintenance rate for patients treated with POEM (peroral endoscopic myotomy) was 100% at 1 year, and 88.9% at 2 and 3 years, respectively.