Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Failed Previous Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a rescue treatment for recurrent or persistent achalasia after failed initial management. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of POEM in achalasia patients with failed previous intervention. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Coch...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Gut and liver 2021-03, Vol.15 (2), p.153
Main Authors: Shali Tan, Chunyu Zhong, Yutang Ren, Xujuan Luo, Jin Xu, Xiangsheng Fu, Yan Peng, Xiaowei Tang
Format: Article
Language:Korean
Subjects:
Esophageal achalasia
Meta-analysis
Pyloromyotomy
Safety
Treatment failure
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a rescue treatment for recurrent or persistent achalasia after failed initial management. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of POEM in achalasia patients with failed previous intervention. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases using the queries “achalasia,” “peroral endoscopic myotomy,” and related terms in March 2019. Data on technical and clinical success, adverse events, Eckardt score and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure were collected. The pooled event rates, mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated. A total of 15 studies with 2,276 achalasia patients were included. Overall, the pooled technical success, clinical success and adverse events rate of rescue POEM were 98.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.6% to 98.8%), 90.8% (95% CI, 88.8% to 92.4%) and 10.3% (95% CI, 6.6% to 15.8%), respectively. Seven studies compared the clinical outcomes of POEM between previous failed treatment and the treatment naïve patients. The RR for technical success, clinical success, and adverse events were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.01), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.04), and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.76), respectively. Overall, there was significant reduction in the pre- and post-Eckardt score (MD, 5.77; p
ISSN:1976-2283