Search

Background and Aim: The perioperative management and clinical course of per‐oral endoscopic myotomy for patients receiving antithrombotic therapy remains unknown. This study aimed to clarify the status of antithrombotic therapy in per‐oral endoscopic myotomy and to determine its safety and efficacy. Methods: Patients treated with per‐oral endoscopic myotomy from 2010 to 2019 in seven high‐volume centers in Japan were retrospectively investigated. The patients' characteristics and antithrombotic agent management were analyzed; clinical outcomes were compared with those without antithrombotic agents. Results: Of 2752 patients who underwent per‐oral endoscopic myotomy, 120 patients on antithrombotic therapy (mean age 71.0 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists class II–IV [67.5%]) were identified. Antiplatelet, anticoagulant, and a combination of antithrombotic agents were used in 82, 30, and 8 patients, respectively. The perioperative management adhered to the therapeutic endoscopy guidelines published by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Endoscopy in most patients (88.3%). A poorer clinical baseline status (American Society of Anesthesiologists class II–IV; 67.0% vs 24.3%) and the sigmoid type (40.7% vs 22.3%) were more frequently observed in patients with achalasia on antithrombotic therapy. However, the clinical success (Eckardt score ≤ 3; 97.6% vs 94.6) and adverse event rates, such as bleeding and thromboembolic events (5.5% vs 4.7%), did not show inferiority. Conclusions: Per‐oral endoscopic myotomy on antithrombotic therapy is safe and effective. However, caution is required as patients on antithrombotic therapy tend to have poorer baseline health and achalasia statuses. Our experience should help establish perioperative management with antithrombotic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Achalasia is a rare disease, with an incidence of one in 100 000. Genetic factors and autoimmune involvement have been reported in its etiology, and their involvement is strongly suspected, especially in patients with familial achalasia and those with comorbid hereditary or autoimmune diseases. However, these special types of achalasia are rare, and their frequency and clinical characteristics remain unclear. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included Japanese patients with a diagnosis of achalasia, treated between 2010 and 2019 across six tertiary centers in Japan. The frequency and clinical characteristics of special types of achalasia, namely, familial achalasia, achalasia with a comorbid hereditary disease, and achalasia with a comorbid autoimmune disease, were retrospectively investigated using a large‐scale multicenter database. Results: During the study period, 1115 patients were treated for achalasia at six tertiary centers. Familial achalasia, achalasia with a comorbid hereditary disease, and achalasia with a comorbid autoimmune disease occurred in 7 (0.63%), 11 (0.99%), and 27 (2.4%) patients, respectively. Familial achalasia had a slightly younger age of onset (37.6 ± 12.1 years old) and a higher incidence in male patients (six patients; 85.7%). Down's syndrome was the most common hereditary comorbidity, and thyroid disease was the most common autoimmune comorbidity. Conclusions: We clarified the frequency and clinical characteristics of special types of achalasia. Although special types of achalasia are rare, these comorbidities should be considered when treating patients with achalasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]