Loading…
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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Gut and liver 2021-03, Vol.15 (2), p.153 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | Korean |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 153 |
container_title | Gut and liver |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Shali Tan Chunyu Zhong Yutang Ren Xujuan Luo Jin Xu Xiangsheng Fu Yan Peng Xiaowei Tang |
description | 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 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>kiss</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kiss_primary_3879000</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><kiss_id>3879000</kiss_id><sourcerecordid>3879000</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kiss_primary_38790003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9jUFuwjAQRb0oEpRygm7mApFMohLoDlVB7QIpatijkTMWA46NPC7It-iRG1Vdd_UW7339BzVbbupVUZbraqoeRc5ar5Zl_TJT3421bNBkQN9Dh5ZShmChpRgiOmh8H8SEKxvY55DCkIE9bM0JHQojtJiYfBK4czrBDtlRD22kG4cvgQ-fKN5Gz8G_wha6LImGcWLgc0zo_vu6p4QFenRZWJ7UxKITWvxxrp53zeHtvbiwyPEaecCYj9W63mitq__tD50hUCc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Failed Previous Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Shali Tan ; Chunyu Zhong ; Yutang Ren ; Xujuan Luo ; Jin Xu ; Xiangsheng Fu ; Yan Peng ; Xiaowei Tang</creator><creatorcontrib>Shali Tan ; Chunyu Zhong ; Yutang Ren ; Xujuan Luo ; Jin Xu ; Xiangsheng Fu ; Yan Peng ; Xiaowei Tang</creatorcontrib><description>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<0.001) and LES pressure (MD, 18.3 mm Hg; p<0.001) for achalasia patients with failed previous intervention after POEM. POEM appears to be a safe, effective and feasible treatment for individuals who have undergone previous failed intervention. It has similar outcomes in previously treated and treatment-naïve achalasia patients. (Gut Liver 2021;15:153-167)</description><identifier>ISSN: 1976-2283</identifier><language>kor</language><publisher>대한소화기학회</publisher><subject>Esophageal achalasia ; Meta-analysis ; Pyloromyotomy ; Safety ; Treatment failure</subject><ispartof>Gut and liver, 2021-03, Vol.15 (2), p.153</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shali Tan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chunyu Zhong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yutang Ren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xujuan Luo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin Xu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiangsheng Fu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan Peng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiaowei Tang</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Failed Previous Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><title>Gut and liver</title><addtitle>Gut and Liver</addtitle><description>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<0.001) and LES pressure (MD, 18.3 mm Hg; p<0.001) for achalasia patients with failed previous intervention after POEM. POEM appears to be a safe, effective and feasible treatment for individuals who have undergone previous failed intervention. It has similar outcomes in previously treated and treatment-naïve achalasia patients. (Gut Liver 2021;15:153-167)</description><subject>Esophageal achalasia</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Pyloromyotomy</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Treatment failure</subject><issn>1976-2283</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9jUFuwjAQRb0oEpRygm7mApFMohLoDlVB7QIpatijkTMWA46NPC7It-iRG1Vdd_UW7339BzVbbupVUZbraqoeRc5ar5Zl_TJT3421bNBkQN9Dh5ZShmChpRgiOmh8H8SEKxvY55DCkIE9bM0JHQojtJiYfBK4czrBDtlRD22kG4cvgQ-fKN5Gz8G_wha6LImGcWLgc0zo_vu6p4QFenRZWJ7UxKITWvxxrp53zeHtvbiwyPEaecCYj9W63mitq__tD50hUCc</recordid><startdate>20210330</startdate><enddate>20210330</enddate><creator>Shali Tan</creator><creator>Chunyu Zhong</creator><creator>Yutang Ren</creator><creator>Xujuan Luo</creator><creator>Jin Xu</creator><creator>Xiangsheng Fu</creator><creator>Yan Peng</creator><creator>Xiaowei Tang</creator><general>대한소화기학회</general><scope>HZB</scope><scope>Q5X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210330</creationdate><title>Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Failed Previous Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><author>Shali Tan ; Chunyu Zhong ; Yutang Ren ; Xujuan Luo ; Jin Xu ; Xiangsheng Fu ; Yan Peng ; Xiaowei Tang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kiss_primary_38790003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>kor</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Esophageal achalasia</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Pyloromyotomy</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Treatment failure</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shali Tan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chunyu Zhong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yutang Ren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xujuan Luo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jin Xu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiangsheng Fu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan Peng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiaowei Tang</creatorcontrib><collection>KISS = 한국의핵심지식정보자원</collection><collection>Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS) B-Type</collection><jtitle>Gut and liver</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shali Tan</au><au>Chunyu Zhong</au><au>Yutang Ren</au><au>Xujuan Luo</au><au>Jin Xu</au><au>Xiangsheng Fu</au><au>Yan Peng</au><au>Xiaowei Tang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Failed Previous Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Gut and liver</jtitle><addtitle>Gut and Liver</addtitle><date>2021-03-30</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>153</spage><pages>153-</pages><issn>1976-2283</issn><abstract>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<0.001) and LES pressure (MD, 18.3 mm Hg; p<0.001) for achalasia patients with failed previous intervention after POEM. POEM appears to be a safe, effective and feasible treatment for individuals who have undergone previous failed intervention. It has similar outcomes in previously treated and treatment-naïve achalasia patients. (Gut Liver 2021;15:153-167)</abstract><pub>대한소화기학회</pub><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1976-2283 |
ispartof | Gut and liver, 2021-03, Vol.15 (2), p.153 |
issn | 1976-2283 |
language | kor |
recordid | cdi_kiss_primary_3879000 |
source | PubMed Central |
subjects | Esophageal achalasia Meta-analysis Pyloromyotomy Safety Treatment failure |
title | Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Failed Previous Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T17%3A06%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20and%20Safety%20of%20Peroral%20Endoscopic%20Myotomy%20in%20Achalasia%20Patients%20with%20Failed%20Previous%20Intervention:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Gut%20and%20liver&rft.au=Shali%20Tan&rft.date=2021-03-30&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=153&rft.pages=153-&rft.issn=1976-2283&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckiss%3E3879000%3C/kiss%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-kiss_primary_38790003%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_kiss_id=3879000&rfr_iscdi=true |