Pneumatic dilation for achalasia in a patient with esophageal varices.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Desilets E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4831925 | biostudies-other | 2016 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7570200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsOne of the most used treatments for achalasia is pneumatic dilation of the lower esophageal sphincter to improve esophageal emptying. Multiple treatment protocols have been described with a varying balloon size, number of dilations, inflation pressure, and duration. We aimed to identify the most efficient and safe treatment protocol.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on pneumatic dilation in patients with primary achalasia. Clinical remission was defined as an Eckardt score ?3 or adequate symptom reduction measured with a similar validated questionnaire. We compared the clinical remission rates and occurrence of complications between different treatment protocols.ResultsWe included 10 studies with 643 patients. After 6 months, dilation with a 30-mm or 35-mm balloon gave comparable mean success rates (81% and 79%, respectively), whereas a series of dilations up to 40 mm had a higher success rate of 90%. Elective additional dilation in patients with insufficient symptom resolution was somewhat more effective than performing a predefined series of dilations: 86% versus 75% after 12 months. Perforations occurred most often during initial dilations, and significantly more often using a 35-mm balloon than a 30-mm balloon (3.2 vs 1.0%); P = 0.027. A subsequent 35-mm dilation was safer than an initial dilation with 35 mm (0.97% vs 9.3% perforations), P = 0.0017.ConclusionsThe most efficient and safe method of dilating achalasia patients is a graded approach starting with a 30-mm dilation, followed by an elective 35-mm dilation and 40 mm when there is insufficient symptom relief.
| S-EPMC6849773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being used as the preferred treatment option for achalasia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of POEM versus pneumatic balloon dilation (PD). Methods We performed a comprehensive review of studies that reported clinical outcomes of POEM and PD for the treatment of achalasia. Measured outcomes included clinical success (improvement of symptoms based on a validated scale including an Eckardt score ≤ 3), adverse events, and post-treatment gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Results Sixty-six studies (6268 patients) were included in the final analysis, of which 29 studies (2919 patients) reported on POEM and 33 studies (3050 patients) reported on PD and 4 studies (299 patients) compared POEM versus PD. Clinical success with POEM was superior to PD at 12, 24, and 36 months (92.9 %, vs 76.9 % P = 0.001; 90.6 % vs 74.8 %, P = 0.004; 88.4 % vs 72.2 %, P = 0.006, respectively). POEM was superior to PD in type I, II and III achalasia (92.7 % vs 61 %, P = 0.01; 92.3 % vs 80.3 %, P = 0.01; 92.3 %v 41.9 %, P = 0.01 respectively) Pooled OR of clinical success at 12 and 24 months were significantly higher with POEM (8.97; P = 0.001 & 5.64; P = 0.006). Pooled OR of GERD was significantly higher with POEM (by symptoms: 2.95, P = 0.02 and by endoscopic findings: 6.98, P = 0.001). Rates of esophageal perforation (0.3 % vs 0.6 %, P = 0.8) and significant bleeding (0.4 % vs 0.7 %, P = 0.56) were comparable between POEM and PD groups. Conclusions POEM is more efficacious than PD in the treatment of patients with achalasia during short-term and long-term follow-up, albeit with higher risk of abnormal esophageal acid exposure.
| S-EPMC8216779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCase series suggest favorable results of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treatment of patients with achalasia. Data comparing POEM with pneumatic dilation, the standard treatment for patients with achalasia, are lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the effects of POEM vs pneumatic dilation as initial treatment of treatment-naive patients with achalasia.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized multicenter clinical trial was conducted at 6 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Hong Kong, and the United States. Adult patients with newly diagnosed achalasia and an Eckardt score greater than 3 who had not undergone previous treatment were included. The study was conducted between September 2012 and July 2015, the duration of follow-up was 2 years after the initial treatment, and the final date of follow-up was November 22, 2017.InterventionsRandomization to receive POEM (n = 67) or pneumatic dilation with a 30-mm and a 35-mm balloon (n = 66), with stratification according to hospital.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was treatment success (defined as an Eckardt score ≤3 and the absence of severe complications or re-treatment) at the 2-year follow-up. A total of 14 secondary end points were examined among patients without treatment failure, including integrated relaxation pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter via high-resolution manometry, barium column height on timed barium esophagogram, and presence of reflux esophagitis.ResultsOf the 133 randomized patients, 130 (mean age, 48.6 years; 73 [56%] men) underwent treatment (64 in the POEM group and 66 in the pneumatic dilation group) and 126 (95%) completed the study. The primary outcome of treatment success occurred in 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group vs 34 of 63 (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group, a difference of 38% ([95% CI, 22%-52%]; P < .001). Of the 14 prespecified secondary end points, no significant difference between groups was demonstrated in 10 end points. There was no significant between-group difference in median integrated relaxation pressure (9.9 mm Hg in the POEM group vs 12.6 mm Hg in the pneumatic dilation group; difference, 2.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.1 to 7.5]; P = .07) or median barium column height (2.3 cm in the POEM group vs 0 cm in the pneumatic dilation group; difference, 2.3 cm [95% CI, 1.0-3.6]; P = .05). Reflux esophagitis occurred more often in the POEM group than in the pneumatic dilation group (22 of 54 [41%] vs 2 of 29 [7%]; difference, 34% [95% CI, 12%-49%]; P = .002). Two serious adverse events, including 1 perforation, occurred after pneumatic dilation, while no serious adverse events occurred after POEM.Conclusions and relevanceAmong treatment-naive patients with achalasia, treatment with POEM compared with pneumatic dilation resulted in a significantly higher treatment success rate at 2 years. These findings support consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register number: NTR3593.
| S-EPMC6618792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAchalasia is an esophageal motility disorder, of unknown cause, which results in increased lower esophageal sphincter tone and symptoms of difficulty swallowing. Current major therapeutic options include laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and pneumatic dilation (PD). We undertake a systematic review comparing the efficacy and safety of these 2 treatments in the treatment of esophageal achalasia.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trial investigating LHM versus PD in the treatment of primary achalasia. The primary outcome was symptom remission rates. The Mantel-Haenszel method with fixed-effect or random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsFive studies involving 498 participants were included. The cumulative remission rate was significantly higher with LHM at 3 months and 1 year (short-term), with a risk ratio of 1.16 (95% CI 1.01-1.35, P?=?0.04) and 1.14 (95% CI 1.02-1.27, P?=?0.02), respectively. There were no significant differences between LHM and PD in 2-year and 5-year remission rate (long-term), with a risk ratio of 1.05 (95% CI 0.91-1.22, P?=?0.49) and 1.17 (95% CI 0.84-1.64, P?=?0.34), respectively. Rates of major mucosal tears requiring subsequent intervention with LHM were significantly lower than those of esophageal perforation with PD requiring postprocedural medical or surgical therapy, with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95% CI 0.08-0.81, P?=?0.02). Postprocedural rates of gastroesophageal reflux, lower esophageal sphincter pressures, and quality of life scores did not differ in trials with sufficient data.ConclusionsThere were no significant differences between LHM and PD in 2-year and 5-year remission rate. This study indicates that either treatment can be proposed as initial treatment for achalasia.
| S-EPMC5319488 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6301982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMegaesophagus (ME) carries a poor long-term prognosis in dogs. In people, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) achalasia is a rare cause of ME that may respond to targeted intervention. Dogs with lower esophageal sphincter achalasia-like syndrome (LES-AS) have been described recently, warranting investigation of analogous targeted treatment.Hypothesis/objectivesEvaluate response of dogs with LES-AS to LES mechanical dilation and botulinum toxin A (BTA) injections, with or without surgical myotomy and fundoplication. We hypothesized that clinical and videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) features of LES-AS would improve after treatment targeting functional LES obstruction.AnimalsFourteen client-owned dogs with LES-AS diagnosed by VFSS.MethodsRetrospective study. Dogs diagnosed with LES-AS underwent treatment between April 2015 and December 2017. Outcome measures included client perception of clinical severity, body weight (BW), body condition score (BCS), regurgitation frequency, and VFSS parameters (ME, esophageal motility, gastric filling). Dogs with positive responses were considered candidates for LES myotomy with fundoplication.ResultsBy a median IQR of 21 (IQR, 14-25) days after mechanical dilation and BTA, clients reported clinical improvement in 100% of dogs, BW increased 20.4% (IQR, 12.7%-25%), pre- and post-treatment BCS was 3 (IQR, 3-4) and 5 (IQR, 4-5), respectively, and frequency of regurgitation decreased by 80% (IQR, 50%-85%). Duration of effect was 40 (IQR, 17-53) days. Despite clinical improvement, ME and abnormal esophageal motility persisted in 14 dogs. Six dogs subsequently underwent myotomy and fundoplication and maintained improvement observed after mechanical dilation and BTA.Conclusions and clinical importanceDogs with LES-AS experienced significant, temporary, clinical improvement after mechanical dilation and BTA. Preliminary results suggest myotomy with fundoplication provide lasting clinical benefit despite persistence of ME.
| S-EPMC6524387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Esophageal achalasia is a primary motility disorder characterized by insufficient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and loss of esophageal peristalsis. Achalasia is a chronic disease that causes progressive irreversible loss of esophageal motor function. The recent development of high-resolution manometry has facilitated the diagnosis of achalasia, and determining the achalasia subtypes based on high-resolution manometry can be important when deciding on treatment methods. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is less invasive than surgery with comparable efficacy. The present guidelines (the "2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines") were developed based on evidence-based medicine; the Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association and Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility served as the operating and development committees, respectively. The development of the guidelines began in June 2018, and a draft consensus based on the Delphi process was achieved in April 2019. The guidelines consist of 18 recommendations: 2 pertaining to the definition and epidemiology of achalasia, 6 pertaining to diagnoses, and 10 pertaining to treatments. The endoscopic treatment section is based on the latest evidence from meta-analyses. Clinicians (including gastroenterologists, upper gastrointestinal tract surgeons, general physicians, nurses, and other hospital workers) and patients could use these guidelines to make an informed decision on the management of achalasia.
| S-EPMC7176504 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5991938 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7221238 | biostudies-literature