| Literature DB >> 35362449 |
Hong Jin Yoon1, Young Hoon Youn2, Sung Hwan Yoo2, Seyeon Jeon2, Hyojin Park2.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Food retention, which is a characteristic observed in patients with achalasia, can interfere with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). However, there is no established guideline for esophageal preparation for POEM. A previous study has shown that drinking warm water may reduce the lower esophageal sphincter pressure in patients with achalasia. This study aims to evaluate the possibility of proper preparation of POEM by instructing the patient to drink warm water.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal achalasia; Esophageal sphincter; Lower; Peroral endoscopic myotomy; Water
Year: 2022 PMID: 35362449 PMCID: PMC8978128 DOI: 10.5056/jnm21119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurogastroenterol Motil ISSN: 2093-0879 Impact factor: 4.924
Esophageal Clearness Grade
| Preparation quality | Grade | Characteristic | Mucosal visualization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good | 0 | Clear | Entire mucosa |
| 1 | Liquid retention | Most of the mucosa | |
| Poor | 2 | Some solid retention | Part of the mucosa |
| 3 | Large amount of solid retention | Not observed |
FigureRepresentative case of different endoscopic preparation grades for patients with achalasia.
Baseline Characteristics of and Preparation Outcomes in Initial Pilot Study
| Variables | Warm water preparation (n = 12) | Control (n = 143) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 3 (25.0) | 64 (44.8) | 0.756 |
| Age (yr) | 42.3 ± 15.0 | 44.2 ± 17.1 | 0.793 |
| Previous treatment | 4 (33.3) | 75 (52.4) | 0.475 |
| Achalasia type | 0.599 | ||
| Type I | 3 (25.0) | 40 (28.0) | |
| Type II | 9 (75.0) | 91 (63.6) | |
| Type III | 0 (0.0) | 12 (8.4) | |
| Clearness grade | 0.274 | ||
| Grade 0 | 2 (16.7) | 54 (37.7) | |
| Grade 1 | 10 (83.3) | 48 (33.6) | |
| Grade 2 | 0 (0.0) | 21 (14.7) | |
| Grade 3 | 0 (0.0) | 20 (14.0) | |
| Preparation quality | 0.019 | ||
| Good | 12 (100.0) | 102 (71.3) | |
| Poor | 0 (0.0) | 41 (28.7) |
Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SD.
Baseline Characteristics of and Preparation Outcomes in the 1:2 Propensity Score-matched Cohort of Initial Pilot Study
| Variables | Warm water preparation (n = 12) | Control (n = 24) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 3 (25.0) | 6 (25.0) | > 0.999 |
| Age (yr) | 42.3 ± 15.0 | 44.7 ± 17.5 | 0.685 |
| Previous treatment | 4 (33.3) | 8 (33.3) | > 0.999 |
| Achalasia type | > 0.999 | ||
| Type I | 3 (25.0) | 6 (25.0) | |
| Type II | 9 (75.0) | 18 (75.0) | |
| Clearness grade | 0.041 | ||
| Grade 0 | 2 (16.7) | 4 (16.7) | |
| Grade 1 | 10 (83.3) | 9 (37.5) | |
| Grade 2 | 0 (0.0) | 6 (25.0) | |
| Grade 3 | 0 (0.0) | 5 (20.9) | |
| Preparation quality (n, %) | 0.006 | ||
| Good | 12 (100.0) | 13 (54.2) | |
| Poor | 0 (0.0) | 11 (45.8) | |
Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SD.
Baseline Characteristics of and Preparation Outcomes in the 1:2 Propensity Score-matched Cohort of Follow-up Study
| Variables | Warm water preparation (n = 29) | Control (n = 58) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 19 (65.5) | 19 (65.5) | > 0.999 |
| Age (yr) | 44.7 ± 15.1 | 41.1 ± 16.5 | 0.327 |
| Previous treatment | 7 (24.1) | 7 (24.1) | > 0.999 |
| Achalasia type | > 0.999 | ||
| Type I | 10 (34.5) | 6 (34.5) | |
| Type II | 18 (62.1) | 18 (62.1) | |
| Type III | 1 (3.4) | 1 (3.4) | |
| Clearness grade | 0.016 | ||
| Grade 0 | 2 (6.9) | 5 (17.2) | |
| Grade 1 | 26 (89.7) | 8 (27.6) | |
| Grade 2 | 1 (3.4) | 9 (31.0) | |
| Grade 3 | 0 (0.0) | 7 (24.2) | |
| Preparation quality | < 0.001 | ||
| Good | 28 (96.6) | 13 (44.8) | |
| Poor | 1 (3.4) | 16 (55.2) | |
Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SD.