[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Effect of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy vs Pneumatic Dilation on Symptom Severity and Treatment Outcomes Among Treatment-Naive Patients With AchalasiaA Randomized Clinical Trial

Educational Objective
To learn about treatment options for patients with achalasia.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What is the effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), compared with pneumatic dilation, on symptom severity and treatment outcomes among patients with treatment-naive achalasia?

Findings  In this randomized clinical trial that included 133 treatment-naive adult patients with achalasia, the treatment success rate, defined as a reduction in the patient’s Eckardt score to less than or equal to 3 and the absence of severe complications or need for re-treatment, after 2 years of follow-up was 58 of 63 patients (92%) in the POEM group and 34 of 63 (54%) in the pneumatic dilation group, which was a statistically significant difference.

Meaning  These findings support the consideration of POEM as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia.

Abstract

Importance  Case 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.

Objective  To compare the effects of POEM vs pneumatic dilation as initial treatment of treatment-naive patients with achalasia.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This 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.

Interventions  Randomization 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 Measures  The 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.

Results  Of 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 Relevance  Among 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 Registration  Netherlands Trial Register number: NTR3593

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: June 7, 2019.

Corresponding Author: Albert J. Bredenoord, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands (a.j.bredenoord@amsterdamumc.nl).

Author Contributions: Drs Ponds and Bredenoord had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Ponds, Fockens, Chiu, Kahrilas, Pandolfino, Smout, Bredenoord.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Ponds, Fockens, Lei, Neuhaus, Beyna, Kandler, Frieling, Chiu, Wu, Wong, Costamagna, Familiari, Pandolfino, Smout, Bredenoord.

Drafting of the manuscript: Ponds, Fockens, Bredenoord.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Ponds.

Obtained funding: Fockens, Bredenoord.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Ponds, Fockens, Lei, Beyna, Frieling, Chiu, Wu, Familiari, Kahrilas, Pandolfino, Bredenoord.

Supervision: Ponds, Fockens, Beyna, Costamagna, Familiari, Kahrilas, Smout, Bredenoord.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Fockens reported receiving personal fees from Cook Endoscopy, Olympus, Ethicon Endosurgery, and Fujifilm, consulting for Medtronic, and receiving research support from Boston Scientific and Ovesco outside the submitted work. Dr Beyna reported receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Olympus, and Boston Scientific, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, personal fees from Falk Foundation, and grants and nonfinancial support from Erbe USA outside the submitted work. Dr Wu reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Reckitt Benckiser, and Menarini outside the submitted work. Dr Costamagna reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Olympus, grants from Boston Scientific, and grants and nonfinancial support from Cook Medical outside the submitted work. Dr Kahrilas reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Pandolfino reported receiving personal fees from Medtronic, Diversatek, Torax, Ironwood, and Takeda and a grant from Impleo outside the submitted work. Dr Bredenoord reported receiving grants and personal fees from Norgine, grants and personal fees from Laborie, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Diversatek, grants from Nutricia, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Celgene, grants and personal fees from Bayer, and personal fees from DrFalk outside the submitted work and grants from Fonds NutsOhra and ESGE Research during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was made possible with financial support from Fonds NutsOhra (FNO grant 1202-022) and an ESGE Research Grant.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.

References
1.
Boeckxstaens  GE.  The lower oesophageal sphincter.  Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005;17(suppl 1):13-21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2005.00661.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Boeckxstaens  GE, Annese  V, des Varannes  SB,  et al; European Achalasia Trial Investigators.  Pneumatic dilation versus laparoscopic Heller’s myotomy for idiopathic achalasia.  N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1807-1816. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1010502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Vela  MF, Richter  JE, Khandwala  F,  et al.  The long-term efficacy of pneumatic dilatation and Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4(5):580-587. doi:10.1016/S1542-3565(05)00986-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Hulselmans  M, Vanuytsel  T, Degreef  T,  et al.  Long-term outcome of pneumatic dilation in the treatment of achalasia.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(1):30-35. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2009.09.020PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Moonen  A, Annese  V, Belmans  A,  et al.  Long-term results of the European achalasia trial: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing pneumatic dilation versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy.  Gut. 2016;65(5):732-739. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Campos  GM, Vittinghoff  E, Rabl  C,  et al.  Endoscopic and surgical treatments for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Ann Surg. 2009;249(1):45-57. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818e43abPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Lynch  KL, Pandolfino  JE, Howden  CW, Kahrilas  PJ.  Major complications of pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy for achalasia: single-center experience and systematic review of the literature.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(12):1817-1825. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.332PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Inoue  H, Minami  H, Kobayashi  Y,  et al.  Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia.  Endoscopy. 2010;42(4):265-271. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1244080PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Von Renteln  D, Fuchs  KH, Fockens  P,  et al.  Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: an international prospective multicenter study.  Gastroenterology. 2013;145(2):309-11.e1, 3. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Kahrilas  PJ, Katzka  D, Richter  JE.  Clinical practice update: the use of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia: expert review and best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association.  Gastroenterology. 2017;153(5):1205-1211. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.10.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Bredenoord  AJ, Rösch  T, Fockens  P.  Peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia.  Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26(1):3-12. doi:10.1111/nmo.12257PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Inoue  H, Sato  H, Ikeda  H,  et al.  Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: a series of 500 patients.  J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(2):256-264. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.03.057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Teitelbaum  EN, Soper  NJ, Santos  BF,  et al.  Symptomatic and physiologic outcomes one year after peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM) for treatment of achalasia.  Surg Endosc. 2014;28(12):3359-3365. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3628-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Familiari  P, Gigante  G, Marchese  M,  et al.  Peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: outcomes of the first 100 patients with short-term follow-up.  Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):82-87. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000000992PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Kumbhari  V, Familiari  P, Bjerregaard  NC,  et al.  Gastroesophageal reflux after peroral endoscopic myotomy: a multicenter case-control study.  Endoscopy. 2017;49(7):634-642. doi:10.1055/s-0043-105485PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Sankar  A, Johnson  SR, Beattie  WS, Tait  G, Wijeysundera  DN.  Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice.  Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(3):424-432. doi:10.1093/bja/aeu100PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Eckardt  VF.  Clinical presentations and complications of achalasia.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2001;11(2):281-292. doi:10.1016/S1052-5157(18)30071-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Kahrilas  PJ, Bredenoord  AJ, Fox  M,  et al; International High Resolution Manometry Working Group.  The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0.  Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(2):160-174. doi:10.1111/nmo.12477PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Jones  R, Junghard  O, Dent  J,  et al.  Development of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30(10):1030-1038. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04142.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Brazier  JE, Harper  R, Jones  NM,  et al.  Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.  BMJ. 1992;305(6846):160-164. doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Frankhuisen  R, Heijkoop  R, van Herwaarden  MA,  et al.  Validation of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire in a large sample of Dutch achalasia patients.  Dis Esophagus. 2008;21(6):544-550. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2050.2008.00815.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Pandolfino  JE, Ghosh  SK, Rice  J, Clarke  JO, Kwiatek  MA, Kahrilas  PJ.  Classifying esophageal motility by pressure topography characteristics: a study of 400 patients and 75 controls.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(1):27-37. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01532.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Pandolfino  JE, Ghosh  SK, Zhang  Q, Jarosz  A, Shah  N, Kahrilas  PJ.  Quantifying EGJ morphology and relaxation with high-resolution manometry: a study of 75 asymptomatic volunteers.  Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2006;290(5):G1033-G1040. doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00444.2005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Rohof  WO, Lei  A, Boeckxstaens  GE.  Esophageal stasis on a timed barium esophagogram predicts recurrent symptoms in patients with long-standing achalasia.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(1):49-55. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.318PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Vaezi  MF, Baker  ME, Achkar  E, Richter  JE.  Timed barium oesophagram: better predictor of long term success after pneumatic dilation in achalasia than symptom assessment.  Gut. 2002;50(6):765-770. doi:10.1136/gut.50.6.765PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
de Oliveira  JM, Birgisson  S, Doinoff  C,  et al.  Timed barium swallow: a simple technique for evaluating esophageal emptying in patients with achalasia.  Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(2):473-479. doi:10.2214/ajr.169.2.9242756PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Lundell  LR, Dent  J, Bennett  JR,  et al.  Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification.  Gut. 1999;45(2):172-180. doi:10.1136/gut.45.2.172PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Werner  YB, Costamagna  G, Swanström  LL,  et al.  Clinical response to peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia at a minimum follow-up of 2 years.  Gut. 2016;65(6):899-906. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308649PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Haito-Chavez  Y, Inoue  H, Beard  KW,  et al.  Comprehensive analysis of adverse events associated with per oral endoscopic myotomy in 1826 patients: an international multicenter study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(8):1267-1276. doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Eckardt  VF, Gockel  I, Bernhard  G.  Pneumatic dilation for achalasia: late results of a prospective follow up investigation.  Gut. 2004;53(5):629-633. doi:10.1136/gut.2003.029298PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Mikaeli  J, Bishehsari  F, Montazeri  G, Yaghoobi  M, Malekzadeh  R.  Pneumatic balloon dilatation in achalasia: a prospective comparison of safety and efficacy with different balloon diameters.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20(4):431-436. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02080.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Jones  EL, Meara  MP, Schwartz  JS, Hazey  JW, Perry  KA.  Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms do not correlate with objective pH testing after peroral endoscopic myotomy.  Surg Endosc. 2016;30(3):947-952. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4321-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Csendes  A, Braghetto  I, Burdiles  P, Korn  O, Csendes  P, Henríquez  A.  Very late results of esophagomyotomy for patients with achalasia: clinical, endoscopic, histologic, manometric, and acid reflux studies in 67 patients for a mean follow-up of 190 months.  Ann Surg. 2006;243(2):196-203. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000197469.12632.e0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Carter  JT, Nguyen  D, Roll  GR, Ma  SW, Way  LW.  Predictors of long-term outcome after laparoscopic esophagomyotomy and Dor fundoplication for achalasia.  Arch Surg. 2011;146(9):1024-1028. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2011.214PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Popoff  AM, Myers  JA, Zelhart  M,  et al.  Long-term symptom relief and patient satisfaction after Heller myotomy and Toupet fundoplication for achalasia.  Am J Surg. 2012;203(3):339-342. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.10.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Topics
State Requirements