Francesco Torresan1, Fabio Cortellini1,2, Francesco Azzaroli1,2, Alexandros Ioannou3, Cecilia Mularoni2, Dikla Shoshan2, Daniele Mandolesi1, Roberto De Giorgio4, George Karamanolis3, Franco Bazzoli1,2. 1. Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy (Francesco Torresan, Fabio Cortellini, Francesco Azzaroli, Daniele Mandolesi, Franco Bazzoli). 2. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (Fabio Cortellini, Francesco Azzaroli, Cecilia Mularoni, Dikla Shoshan, Franco Bazzoli). 3. 2 Department of Surgery, Gastroenterology Unit, "Aretaieio" University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece (Alexandros Ioannou, George Karamanolis). 4. Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy (Roberto De Giorgio).
Achalasia is a rare esophageal motor disorder characterized by the absence of
peristalsis and a defective relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES),
resulting in chronic dysphagia, regurgitation and chest pain [1]. Since the introduction of high-resolution manometry (HRM)
in 2008, achalasia has been classified into clinically relevant subtypes [2,3].
The updated Chicago classification (version 4.0) categorizes achalasia into 3
subtypes [4] that have important
implications for management outcomes [5].
Despite the important step forward in diagnostic accuracy, the pathophysiology of
primary achalasia remains unclear and therapeutic options are still symptomatic.
Indeed, current treatment in achalasia aims to relieve symptoms by reducing the LES
resting pressure [1] via 3 durable
techniques used as first-line options: pneumatic dilation (PD); laparoscopic
Heller’s myotomy (LHM); and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) [5]. PD is an endoscopic method that forces the
hypertonic LES by intraluminal dilation of a pressurized noncompliant balloon [3]. The available evidence about the technique
in the literature indicates a variable efficacy in relieving symptoms of achalasia,
with success rates ranging from 50-93%. These percentages, however, depend on
the varied treatment protocols used and are derived from studies that do not
consider the achalasia subtypes according to the Chicago classification. A
limitation commonly detectable in some studies is the inclusion of subtype III
patients [6-8], who manifest a poor outcome with PD [9]. To our knowledge, data on the effectiveness of PD in
patients with subtypes I and II achalasia are limited.Major complications of PD include esophageal perforation (2.3-3.5%) and
bleeding, both requiring surgery (1-4%) [10]. In the long-term follow up, one of the main side effects is
symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which occurs frequently in
PD-treated patients (10-31%) [11].
In our tertiary referral center, we used PD with a “graded approach”
[12] to reduce complications and
excluded subtype III achalasia patients from the analysis based on the
pathophysiological concept that spastic contractions are unlikely to respond to PD.
In this study we performed a retrospective analysis of the short- and long-term
outcomes, safety profile and side effects of graded-protocol PD in patients with
subtype I and II achalasia.
Patients and methods
This was a retrospective, observational study carried out in a tertiary referral
Gastroenterology Unit at St. Orsola University Hospital, Bologna, Italy. The study
protocol was approved by the Local Medical Ethical Committee (approval code:
109/2020/Oss/AOUBo).From January 2010 to July 2020, 141 patients with achalasia were divided into 3
subtypes according to the Chicago classification (version 4.0). Although HRM was
used, as it was readily available from 2015 on, previous diagnoses of achalasia were
established via conventional manometry and then re-categorized into the 3 subtypes
as described by Salvador et al [13]. Accordingly, one of the authors (FT) re-evaluated the full digital
esophageal tracings obtained with conventional manometry using the electric pump
software (Mui Scientific, Mississauga, Canada). We considered the contraction waves
recorded 5 and 10 cm above the upper margin of the LES. Patients were classified
into the achalasia subtypes as follows: subtype I, at least 8 of 10 swallows
elicited contractions with an amplitude <30 mmHg; subtype II, 2 or more
contractions with an amplitude >30 mmHg; subtype III, at least 2 spastic
contractions with an amplitude >70 mmHg and duration >6.0 sec.Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged >18 years with achalasia
subtype I or II referred for esophageal manometry. Patients with subtype III
achalasia (n=40) were evaluated exclusively for epidemiology. On the other hand,
patients who had undergone previous treatments (i.e., previous PD, LHM or POEM) or
were of advanced age (>75 years) and/or severe comorbidities (n=25), were
managed with safer treatments, such as botulinum toxin injections [14], and were therefore excluded from this
study. Secondary forms of achalasia, resulting from esophageal cancer or other
infiltrative diseases, were ruled out via upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
PD procedure
Endoscopic PD was performed by a single, experienced operator (FT) using a 30, 35
or 40 mm diameter dilation balloon (Rigiflex ABD®, Boston Scientific,
Natick, USA). The balloon was placed over an endoscopically introduced guide
wire and positioned across the LES under fluoroscopic guidance. Once in place,
the balloon was left inflated at 10-15 pounds per square inch (psi) for 60 sec.
The procedures were carried out on an inpatient basis until 2016, and from that
year on in outpatients discharged after 4-6 h post-dilation following a contrast
(gastrografin) esophagram to rule out perforations. In order to minimize
undesirable events, we used a “graded approach”: i.e., starting
with a 30-mm diameter balloon and progressing, if necessary, to a larger
diameter balloon. The need for further dilation was determined by the
persistence of symptoms (Eckardt score >3) 4 weeks after the procedure.
Patients with persistence of symptoms underwent an elective additional dilation
with 35 mm diameter balloon. A third dilation with 40-mm diameter balloon was
performed in those unresponsive to the second dilation. Patients with Eckardt
scores >3 at 4 weeks after the third dilation were considered early
failures and referred to other treatments. Patients achieving an Eckardt score
≤3 at the end of the first cycle of the graded approach were considered
as successful treatments in the short-term outcome. To assess long-term outcome,
we conducted annual follow-up evaluations with Eckardt score. Four patients died
for other reasons during the follow up (2 from cardiac failure, 1 from a
cerebrovascular event, and 1 from sepsis). Additional redilation series were
proposed to those who showed clinical relapses during follow up, starting with
the last balloon diameter used. The incidence of GERD following the procedure
was determined based on the new-onset use of proton pump inhibitors. Median
follow up was 56 months (range 2-137) for both types, i.e., 89 months (24-137)
for subtype I, and 38 months (2-131) for subtype II.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive analysis was carried out using the appropriate statistics, such as
mean, median, standard deviation and confidence intervals. The
D’Agostino-Pearson test for normal distribution was applied for the
baseline characteristics variables. We presented the epidemiological data for
the entire population included in the study. To assess the differences before
and after therapy we used the Student’s t-test for
continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical
variables. Treatment success was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3. To
evaluate which variables were associated with therapeutic success, we carried
out a Cox logistic regression analysis. All P-values were 2-tailed and a P-value
<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using
MedCalc 19.6.4 (MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium).
Results
A final cohort of 76 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Of these, 4 patients were lost to follow
up and were not analyzed for the long-term results. The baseline characteristics of
the study population are summarized in Table
1. The mean pre-dilation Eckardt score was 7.2±1.86 in the subtype
I group and 7.05±1.89 in subtype II.
Figure 1
Study flowchart
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of the retrospective cohort
Study flowchartBaseline characteristics of the retrospective cohort
Short-term outcome
Among the 24 subtype I patients, 23 (95.8%) reached clinical remission
(defined as Eckardt score ≤3) after the first PD. One subject achieved
remission after the second dilation, leading to a 100% success rate in
the first series of PDs. The 40 mm diameter balloon was not necessary in subtype
I achalasia. In the 52 patients with subtype II, the first dilation was
effective in 40 (76.9%), the second in 8 (92.3%), and the third in
2 cases (96.2%). Only one patient from the subtype II group refused
permission to continue the graded approach after a first unsuccessful PD. At the
end of the graded protocol, 74 of the 76 patients from both groups had
successful treatment (success rate 97.4%; Table 2). A total of 90 PDs were completed without major
complications (i.e., perforation and bleeding requiring surgery): 25 for subtype
I (average/patient=1.04) and 65 for subtype II (average/patient=1.25).
Table 2
Short-term results and complications of pneumatic dilation in achalasia
subtype I and II
Short-term results and complications of pneumatic dilation in achalasia
subtype I and II
Long-term outcome
The long-term outcome after a median period of 56 months was as follows:
90.9% subtype I and 86% subtype II achalasia patients were in
clinical remission (Table 3). In the
subtype I group, among the 22 patients who responded to the first series of PDs
and completed the follow up, 2 patients (9.1%) showed clinical recurrence
and so underwent a redilation starting from the balloon diameter used in the
last procedure. These 2 patients were treated with a 35 mm balloon: 1 achieved
clinical remission, whereas the other did not. Indeed, the latter patient failed
even after the 40 mm diameter balloon dilation (Eckardt score at 4 weeks=5) and
was therefore referred for surgery. Considering redilations, the long-term
success of PD in our series reached 95.5% in subtype I achalasia.
Table 3
Long-term results and side-effects of pneumatic dilation in achalasia
subtype I and II
Long-term results and side-effects of pneumatic dilation in achalasia
subtype I and IIIn the subtype II group, 7 of 50 patients (14%) presented with a relapse
during the follow up. Four had undergone only the first dilation, one of them
had one dilation with a 35-mm diameter balloon and 2 patients completed the
graded protocol with the last 40 mm diameter balloon dilation. Two patients
underwent a further procedure with a 35-mm balloon, leading to clinical
remission. The remaining 5 did not benefit from redilations and were referred
for different treatments, either LHM or POEM. A ”re-do” strategy,
with additional dilations during the follow up, permitted a clinical remission
rate of 90%. None of the patients who underwent redilations had major
complications, while none of the variables analyzed (age, sex, achalasia
subtype, Eckardt score before treatment, time interval between diagnosis and
treatment) showed any correlation with therapeutic success. Finally, we
evaluated the incidence of postoperative GERD: 27.8% of the patients
treated with PD needed proton pump inhibitors after the treatment.
Discussion
PD was the first endoscopic technique used to treat achalasia symptoms, regardless of
the underlying manometric pattern, until POEM was developed [15]. By increasing the pressure inside the inflatable
balloon, the therapeutic action of PD aims to stretch the smooth muscle fibers of
the LES, thereby achieving an effective dilation of the sphincter. Thus, unlike
other techniques such as POEM, it cannot act on the symptoms that result from
contraction and pressurization of the proximal muscle of the esophagus, such as
patients with a specific subset of achalasia characterized by prominent contractions
(formerly referred to as “vigorous achalasia”) [16,17]. This
observation became more apparent with the advent of HRM and pressure topography
plotting, which precisely delineated the manometric characteristics of these
patients and defined them as subtype III achalasia [18]. Comparison studies have confirmed a poorer response of
subtype III to PD compared with POEM, which allows smooth muscle dissection up to
proximal esophageal segments [19-21]. For this reason, we opted to include in
our cohort only subtype I and II patients treated with PD.The results reported in this retrospective study, from a cohort of patients
homogeneous as regards sex and age, showed excellent short-term success rates of
100% and 96.2% for subtypes I and II achalasia, respectively. Because
of the chronic nature of this esophageal disorder, we also analyzed long-term
outcomes with later redilations, reaching clinical remission in 95.5% and
90% of subtype I and II patients over a median follow up of 7 and 3 years,
respectively. Our study did not show any correlation between male sex and worse
outcome, as previously suggested by some authors [22,23]. In fact, a large
meta-analysis that investigated patient-specific predictors has recently reported a
lack of any association between sex and treatment outcome [24].Most of the data on the efficacy of PD in the treatment of achalasia include subgroup
III, and thus yield a lower response rate than those reported in this study, where
we have selected only subtypes I and II [25-30]. Recently, a
meta-analysis by Andolfi et al reported the success rates of PD for
each achalasia subtype: 61% and 84% in subtypes I and II,
respectively, after a mean follow up of 24 months. Comparing PD with other
treatments, such as LHM and POEM, the efficacy was clearly in favor of these 2
approaches, yielding respective success rates of 81% and 95% in
subtype I and 92% and 97% in subtype II [9]. Moreover, a prospective clinical trial showed a poor
efficacy for PD compared with excellent results from POEM (53% vs. 92%
after 2 years) [21]. These results,
however, are based on studies that used different dilation protocols and definitions
of clinical success [12]. These criticisms
can be extended to the majority of meta-analyses comparing distinct treatment
methods in achalasia, thereby leading experts to conclude that with the currently
available data it is difficult to establish which treatment option is the best for
any single patient [31]. Notably, our
results were in line with the excellent success rates showed by Rohof et
al, who used a protocol of graded dilation with redilations in patients
with symptom recurrence [32].The graded PD protocol that we have been using since 2010 is the safest and most
effective one among those available [12],
and was recently recommended by European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
guidelines as a therapeutic option [33].
The absence of complications in the short term demonstrated in our study confirms
and expands previous evidence for PD safety. A gradual dilation starting from a
30-mm balloon aims to adapt the diameter of the device to the esophageal caliber, to
allow progressive and safe stretching of the smooth muscle fibers. On the other
hand, in the long-term, the occurrence of reflux was considerable, i.e.,
22.3% and 28% in subtypes I and II, respectively, although these
results were consistent with published data [11]. All the procedures were performed in a tertiary referral center for
esophageal dysmotility and thoracic surgery was available as a back-up in case of
complications. Initially, we applied the procedure to inpatients, whereas more
recently we opted for an outpatient setting, with the advantage of greater patient
compliance and lower costs for the hospital. Although this is not recommended by
guidelines [34], patients who underwent PD
were checked with a contrast (gastrografin) esophagogram before being
discharged.This study clearly had several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, its
retrospective design is known to hamper the power of the obtained results and is
open to possible biases. Secondly, a considerable number of patients, mostly subtype
II achalasia, had to be excluded from PD treatment because of advanced age and/or
severe comorbidities.In conclusion, according to our study, PD is still a safe and effective approach for
treating patients with achalasia subtype I and II. Notably, PD can be performed in
an outpatient setting with reasonable costs, provided that the procedure is
performed in a tertiary referral center with experienced operators and thoracic
surgery available to manage possible complications promptly. The other 2 important
messages that we would like to convey are: 1) the efficacy of PD in achalasia should
always consider the achalasia subtype (with subtypes I and II being most suitable
for PD treatment); and 2) the PD procedure should be performed using a graded
approach, as applied in this study and recommended by most important pertinent
papers on this topic.What is already known:• Achalasia is a rare esophageal motor disorder with unclear
pathophysiology and only symptomatic treatment is available• Pneumatic dilation shows a variable efficacy in relieving
achalasia symptoms• Current data on pneumatic dilation present heterogeneous
dilation protocols and include subtype III achalasiaWhat the new findings are:• In an Italian retrospective cohort of patients with
achalasia subtype I and II, pneumatic dilation with a graded
protocol achieved excellent short-term outcomes• Repeated dilations during follow up ensured an optimal
outcome in the long-term• The graded approach, performed in a tertiary referral center
with thoracic surgery, can be used safely in an outpatient
setting
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: Renato Salvador; Mario Costantini; Giovanni Zaninotto; Tiziana Morbin; Christian Rizzetto; Lisa Zanatta; Martina Ceolin; Elena Finotti; Loredana Nicoletti; Gianfranco Da Dalt; Francesco Cavallin; Ermanno Ancona Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 3.452
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: 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: Mouen A Khashab; Marcelo F Vela; Nirav Thosani; Deepak Agrawal; James L Buxbaum; Syed M Abbas Fehmi; Douglas S Fishman; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Laith H Jamil; Terry L Jue; Bijun Sai Kannadath; Joanna K Law; Jeffrey K Lee; Mariam Naveed; Bashar J Qumseya; Mandeep S Sawhney; Julie Yang; Sachin Wani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 9.427