Literature DB >> 36260203

Mid-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Han Zhang1, Xinyi Zeng1, Shu Huang2, Lei Shi1, Huifang Xia1, Jiao Jiang1, Wensen Ren1, Yan Peng1, Muhan Lü1, Xiaowei Tang3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) achieves a satisfactory short-term clinical response in patients with achalasia. However, data on mid- and long-term clinical outcomes are limited. We aimed to assess the mid- and long-term efficacy and safety of POEM in achalasia patients.
METHODS: Using the pre-designed search strategy, we identified relevant studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM with a minimum of 2-year follow-up in the Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases from inception to January 2021. Primary outcome was pooled mid- and long-term clinical success rate based on the Eckardt score. Secondary outcome was pooled long-term reflux-related adverse events.
RESULTS: A total of 21 studies involving 2,698 patients were included. Overall, the pooled clinical success rates with 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year follow-ups were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.4-93.6%), 90.4% (95% CI 88.1-92.2%), 89.8% (95% CI 83.6-93.9%), and 82.2% (95% CI 76.6-86.7%), respectively. Besides, the pooled long-term clinical success rates for type I, II, and III achalasia were 86.1% (95% CI 80.9-90.1%; I2 = 0%), 87.9% (95% CI 84.2-90.8%; I2 = 48.354%), and 83.9% (95% CI 72.5-91.2%; I2 = 0%), respectively. Moreover, the pooled incidence of symptomatic reflux and reflux esophagitis was 23.9% (95% CI 18.7-29.9%) and 16.7% (95% CI 11.9-23.1%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: POEM is associated with a long-term clinical success of 82.2% after 5 years of follow-up. Randomized control trials comparing POEM with laparoscopic Heller myotomy or pneumatic dilation with longer follow-up periods are needed to further demonstrate the long-term safety and efficacy of POEM.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical success; Esophageal achalasia; Long-term outcome; Meta-analysis; Peroral endoscopic myotomy

Year:  2022        PMID: 36260203     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-022-07720-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.487


  38 in total

1.  Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Andreas Stang
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia.

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

Review 3.  Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: systematic review and pooled analysis.

Authors:  K Patel; N Abbassi-Ghadi; S Markar; S Kumar; P Jethwa; G Zaninotto
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 3.429

4.  ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of achalasia.

Authors:  Michael F Vaezi; John E Pandolfino; Marcelo F Vela
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 5.  Achalasia.

Authors:  Guy E Boeckxstaens; Giovanni Zaninotto; Joel E Richter
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Incidence of Achalasia in South Australia Based on Esophageal Manometry Findings.

Authors:  Jaime A Duffield; Peter W Hamer; Richard Heddle; Richard H Holloway; Jennifer C Myers; Sarah K Thompson
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry.

Authors:  John E Pandolfino; Monika A Kwiatek; Thomas Nealis; William Bulsiewicz; Jennifer Post; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  The 2018 ISDE achalasia guidelines.

Authors:  G Zaninotto; C Bennett; G Boeckxstaens; M Costantini; M K Ferguson; J E Pandolfino; M G Patti; U Ribeiro; J Richter; L Swanstrom; J Tack; G Triadafilopoulos; S R Markar; R Salvador; L Faccio; N A Andreollo; I Cecconello; G Costamagna; J R M da Rocha; E S Hungness; P M Fisichella; K H Fuchs; I Gockel; R Gurski; C P Gyawali; F A M Herbella; R H Holloway; M Hongo; B A Jobe; P J Kahrilas; D A Katzka; K S Dua; D Liu; A Moonen; A Nasi; P J Pasricha; R Penagini; S Perretta; R A A Sallum; G Sarnelli; E Savarino; F Schlottmann; D Sifrim; N Soper; R P Tatum; M F Vaezi; M van Herwaarden-Lindeboom; T Vanuytsel; M F Vela; D I Watson; F Zerbib; S Gittens; C Pontillo; S Vermigli; D Inama; D E Low
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 3.429

9.  The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-10-18

10.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2021-03-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.