Search

Objectives: The endoscopic pressure study integrated system (EPSIS) is a novel diagnostic tool used to evaluate lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function. EPSIS allows the measurement of intragastric pressure (IGP) during gastric insufflation through esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and records its pressure waveform. This study aimed to assess the usefulness and applicability of EPSIS as an adjunct diagnostic modality for achalasia. Methods: This case–control study was conducted using a database of patients who underwent EGD, barium swallow (BS), high‐resolution manometry (HRM), and EPSIS between January 2022 and December 2022. The achalasia (experimental) group (n = 35) consisted of patients with a definitive diagnosis of achalasia. The control group (n = 34) consisted of patients with no abnormalities in EGD, BS, or HRM and no abnormal acid reflux confirmed with 24‐h pH‐impedance monitoring. EPSIS findings were compared between the two groups and characterized by the waveform pattern (uphill or flat), maximum IGP (IGP‐Max), pressure difference, and the gradient of the waveform. Results: All patients in the achalasia group showed an uphill pattern, in contrast to 21 patients (61.8%) in the control group. IGP‐Max demonstrated the best diagnostic accuracy for achalasia, with a cut‐off value of 15.8 mmHg (100% sensitivity, 58.8% specificity, and area under the curve [AUC] 0.78). The pressure gradient also demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy, with a cut‐off value of 0.40 mmHg/s (80% sensitivity, 61.8% specificity, and AUC 0.76). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that EPSIS can be applied as a diagnostic modality in patients with achalasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Reports on learning curve for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in therapeutic endoscopy nonexperts are limited. We aimed to assess the number of cases required to achieve POEM proficiency for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) experts and nonexperts. Methods: This is a retrospective study at the largest POEM referral center in Japan. POEM between April 2014 and December 2020 were included. Nonexperts and ESD experts were divided by training phases: A, 1–20; B, 21–40; C, 41–60; D, 61–80; and E, 81–100 cases. Primary outcome was operation time, and the phase to reach target time (83 min) was investigated. Secondary outcomes were clinical success rate, adverse events, and post‐POEM gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Results: Five hundred and sixty‐six cases were performed by 14 nonexperts, and 555 cases by 15 ESD experts. As the primary outcome, operation time in nonexperts was: A, 95 (79–115.8); B, 86.5 (71–105); C, 80 (70–100); D, 73 (64.5–100.5); and E, 73.5 (57.8–88.8) min, while in ESD experts: A, 90 (74–128); B, 77 (70–92); and C, 77 (70–93.5) min (median [interquartile range]). Operation time decreased significantly as experience increased in both groups (P < 0.001), and nonexperts required 41–60 cases to achieve proficiency, while experts required 21–40 cases. As secondary outcomes, in nonexperts, clinical success was 96.9–100%, adverse events were 5.0–9.2%, symptomatic GERD was 11.8–26.5%, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) intake was 11.5–18.7% in each phase. While in experts, clinical success was 96.2–100%, adverse events were 3.0–5.8%, symptomatic GERD was 14.6–22.0%, and PPI intake was 12.6–17.9%. There were no significant differences among training phases. Conclusions: Non‐ESD experts require more cases to achieve proficiency in POEM. These results are useful for establishing POEM training programs and institutional implementation of the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia is technically challenging to carry out in patients with type III, multiple prior treatments, prior myotomy, and sigmoid type. Herein, we present a series of consecutive patients with complex achalasia and introduce the POEM difficulty score (PDS). Aim: To demonstrate the application and discuss the utility of PDS and present the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of POEM in complex achalasia patients. Methods: Forty consecutive POEM were carried out with 28 meeting the criteria for complex achalasia. Primary outcome was clinical success (Eckardt score ≤3) at a minimum of 3 months follow‐up. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, procedural velocity and PDS. Results: Twenty‐eight complex and 12 non‐complex POEM procedures were carried out with 100% and 92% clinical success, respectively, without any major adverse events with a median follow up of 15 months (complex) and 8 months (non‐complex). Mean velocities for non‐complex, type III, prior myotomy, ≥4 procedures and sigmoid type were as follows: 4.4 ± 1.6, 4.8 ± 1.5, 5.9 ± 2.2, 6.9 ± 2.2 and 8.2 ± 3.2 min/cm, respectively. Median PDS for non‐complex, type III, prior myotomy, ≥4 treatments and sigmoid type were 1 (0–3), 2 (0–4), 2.5 (1–6), 3 (2–6) and 3.5 (1–6), respectively. PDS was shown to correlate well with procedural velocity with a correlation coefficient of 0.772 (Spearman's P < 0.001). Conclusions: PDS identifies the factors that contribute to challenging POEM procedures and correlates well with procedural velocity. The order of increasing difficulty of POEM in complex achalasia appears to be type III, prior myotomy, ≥4 treatments and sigmoid type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel clinical technique developed in Japan used to treat esophageal achalasia and esophageal motility disorders. This technique has been rapidly accepted and widely disseminated throughout our clinical practice because of its low invasiveness, technical novelty, and high efficacy. Since the advent of POEM, there have been no clinical guidelines that clearly indicated its standard of care, and these guidelines have been anticipated both nationally and internationally by clinicians who engage in POEM practice. In 2017, to meet these needs, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) launched the guideline committee for POEM. Based on the guideline development process proposed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (MINDS), the guideline committee initially created research questions on POEM and conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis on each topic. The clinical research extracted from databases for these clinical questions and the systematic review mainly comprised a few retrospective studies with a small number of participants and short trial periods; hence, the strength of the evidence and recommendations derived from these results was low. Throughout this process, the guideline committee met thrice: once on May 13, 2017, and again on September 17, 2017, to formulate the draft. A consensus meeting was then held on January 14, 2018, in Tokyo to establish the guideline statements and finalize the recommendations using the modified Delphi method. This manuscript presents clinical guidelines regarding current standards of practice and recommendations in terms of the nine chief topics in POEM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Methods Results Conclusion The endoscopic pressure study integrated system (EPSIS) is an endoscopic diagnostic system utilized for evaluation of lower esophageal sphincter function. Although previous studies have determined that EPSIS was effective as a tool for the diagnosis of achalasia, it remains uncertain if EPSIS can detect significant changes before and after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), which is the premier treatment for achalasia. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of EPSIS as an objective diagnostic tool for assessing the clinical effect of POEM.We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent POEM from January 2022 to December 2023. The patients underwent EPSIS preoperatively and 2 months postoperatively. Intragastric pressure (IGP) parameters, including the maximum IGP, IGP difference, and waveform gradient were compared pre‐ and post‐POEM. These parameters also were compared between two groups: the postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) group and the non‐GERD group.A total of 50 patients were analyzed. The mean maximum IGP was significantly lower postoperatively than preoperatively (15.0 mmHg vs. 19.8 mmHg, P < 0.001). The mean IGP difference and waveform gradient were also significantly lower postoperatively than preoperatively (8.0 mmHg vs. 12.2 mmHg, P < 0.001; and 0.26 mmHg/s vs. 0.43 mmHg/s, P < 0.001, respectively). The mean postoperative waveform gradient was significantly lower in the GERD group (17 patients, 34%) than in the non‐GERD group (33 patients, 66%) (0.207 mmHg vs. 0.291 mmHg, P = 0.034).The results supported the use of EPSIS as an effective diagnostic tool for assessing the effect of POEM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims In patients with persistent symptoms after Heller myotomy (HM), treatment options include repeat HM, pneumatic dilation, or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM in patients with achalasia with prior HM vs without prior HM. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 180 patients with achalasia who underwent POEM at 13 tertiary centers worldwide, from December 2009 through September 2015. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with prior HM (HM group, exposure; n = 90) and those without prior HM (non-HM group; n = 90). Clinical response was defined by a decrease in Eckardt scores to 3 or less. Adverse events were graded according to criteria set by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Technical success, clinical success, and rates of adverse events were compared between groups. Patients were followed up for a median of 8.5 months. Results POEM was technically successful in 98% of patients in the HM group and in 100% of patients in the non-HM group ( P = .49). A significantly lower proportion of patients in the HM group had a clinical response to POEM (81%) than in the non-HM group (94%; P = .01). There were no significant differences in rates of adverse events between the groups (8% in the HM group vs 13% in the non-HM group; P = .23). Symptomatic reflux and reflux esophagitis after POEM were comparable between groups. Conclusions POEM is safe and effective for patients with achalasia who were not treated successfully by prior HM. Although the rate of clinical success in patients with prior HM is lower than in those without prior HM, the safety profile of POEM is comparable between groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]