Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(11): E1673-E1680
DOI: 10.1055/a-1261-3417
Original article

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is more cost-effective than laparoscopic Heller myotomy in the short term for achalasia: economic evaluation from a randomized controlled trial

Tatiana Morgado Conte
1   University of São Paulo School of Medicine Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Luciana Bertocco de Paiva Haddad
2   Department of Transplantation, Gastroenterology Division, University of São Paulo School of Medicine Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Igor Braga Ribeiro
3   Endoscopy, Gastroenterology Division, University of São Paulo School of Medicine Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura
1   University of São Paulo School of Medicine Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Luiz Augusto Carneiro DʼAlbuquerque
2   Department of Transplantation, Gastroenterology Division, University of São Paulo School of Medicine Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
3   Endoscopy, Gastroenterology Division, University of São Paulo School of Medicine Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims We aimed to perform an economic evaluation of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of achalasia.

Materials and methods An economic cost-utility analysis was carried out over a time horizon of 1 year. Patients with achalasia who were admitted to the gastroenterology outpatient clinic of a public tertiary referral hospital were assigned to undergo POEM or LHM. The monetary amounts ​​were extracted from the intranet of the institution using microcosting. All costs associated with the procedure, hospitalization, clinical follow-up and resolution of therapeutic complications were included. The utility data were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which were estimated from the scores of a quality-of-life questionnaire.

Results Forty patients (20 POEM patients and 20 LHM patients) were included. The final cost associated with POEM and LHM was US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53 and US$ 1,696.44 ± 412.21, respectively (P < 0.001). However, the QALYs in the POEM group (0.434 ± 0.215 vs 0.332 ± 0.222, P = 0.397) were slightly higher than those in the LHM group. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) suggested that an additional US$ 9,046.41/QALY gained was required when using POEM.

Conclusion For the treatment of achalasia in the public health system, POEM appears to be more cost-effective than LHM in the short term.



Publication History

Received: 10 June 2020

Accepted: 18 August 2020

Article published online:
22 October 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Lake JM, Wong RKH. Review article: the management of achalasia – a comparison of different treatment modalities1. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Vela MF. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1238-1249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gunasingam N, Perczuk A, Talbot M. et al. Update on therapeutic interventions for the management of achalasia. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 31: 1422-1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Richter JE. Achalasia - An Update. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010; 16: 232-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Winter H, Shukla R, Elshaer M. et al. Current management of achalasia – A review. Br J Med Pract 2015; 8: a810 https://www.bjmp.org/content/current-management-achalasia-review
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pandolfino JE, Gawron AJ. Achalasia. JAMA 2015; 313: 1841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Anefalos A, Herbella FAM, Patti MG. Upper esophageal sphincter motility and thoracic pressure are determinants of pressurized waves in achalasia subtypes according to the Chicago Classification. World J Surg 2020; 44: 1932-1938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jung H-K, Hong SJ, Lee OY. et al. 2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020; 26: 180-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tsuboi K, Hoshino M, Srinivasan A. et al. Insights gained from symptom evaluation of esophageal motility disorders: a review of 4,215 patients. Digestion 2012; 85: 236-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sinan H, Tatum RP, Soares RV. et al. Prevalence of respiratory symptoms in patients with achalasia. Dis Esophagus 2011; 24: 224-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Coronel MA, Bernardo WM, de Moura DTH. et al. The efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments versus sham, pharmacologic or surgical methods for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arq Gastroenterol 2019; 55: 296-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gupta M, Ghoshal UC, Jindal S. et al. Respiratory dysfunction is common in patients with achalasia and improves after pneumatic dilation. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 744-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bianchi ET, Sallum RAA, Szachnowicz S. et al. Heller-Pinotti, a modified partial fundoplication associated with myotomy to treat achalasia: technical and final results from 445 patients. Mini-invasive Surg 2017; 1: 153-159 DOI: 10.20517/2574-1225.2017.41.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Inaba CS, Wright AS. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and Toupet fundoplication for achalasia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2020; 30 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2020.0158.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 265-271
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Montalvo-Javé EE, Crisanto-Campos BA, Tapia-Jurado J. et al. Perspectiva actual de la cirugía endoscópica transluminal por orificios naturales (CETON) [A current perspective of natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)]. Rev Gastroenterol Peru 2016; 36: 242-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nesargikar PN, Jaunoo SS. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (N.O.T.E.S). Int J Surg 2009; 7: 232-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pasricha P, Hawari R, Ahmed I. et al. Submucosal endoscopic esophageal myotomy: a novel experimental approach for the treatment of achalasia. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 761-764
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Miller HJ, Neupane R, Fayezizadeh M. et al. POEM is a cost-effective procedure: cost-utility analysis of endoscopic and surgical treatment options in the management of achalasia. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 1636-1642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Greenleaf EK, Winder JS, Hollenbeak CS. et al. Cost-effectiveness of per oral endoscopic myotomy relative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 39-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Delgado AAA, de Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB. et al. Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11: 573-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hathorn KE, Chan WW, Aihara H. et al. Determining the safety and effectiveness of electrocautery enhanced scissors for peroral endoscopic myotomy (with video). Clin Endosc 2020; 53: 443-451 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2019.214.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Martins RK, Ribeiro IB, de Moura DTH. et al. Peroral (POME) or surgical myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analyis. Arq Gastroenterol 2020; 57: 79-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Weusten BLAM, Barret M, Bredenoord AJ. et al. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal motility disorders – part 1: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 498-515
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Runge TM, Ichkhanian Y, Khashab MA. POEM for achalasia: endoscopic myotomy enters its golden age, and we are taking NOTES. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1045-1049.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Werner YB, Hakanson B, Martinek J. et al. Endoscopic or Surgical myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 2219-2229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Noguchi K, Gel Y, Brunner E. et al. nparLD: An R Software Package for the Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. J Stat Software 2012; 50: 1-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Noguchi K, Latif M, Thangalevu K. et al. Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons;
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Swanström LL. Achalasia: treatment, current status and future advances. Korean J Intern Med 2019; 34: 1173-1180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Martins RK, Bernardo WM, Moura ET. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus surgical myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB538-AB539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mohan BP, Ofosu A, Chandan S. et al. Anterior versus posterior approach in peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 251-258
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hashimoto R, Inoue H, Shimamura Y. et al. POEM as salvage therapy in patients with achalasia refractory to endoscopic or surgical therapy is technically feasible and safe: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Dig Endosc 2020; DOI: 10.1111/den.13643. [Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32012360]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Farias GFA, de Moura DTH, de Moura ETH. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): a comparative study between Chagasic and idiopathic achalasia. Endosc Int Open 2020; 08: E506-E512
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Antonini Ribeiro R, Lavanholi Neyeloff J, Itria A. et al. Diretriz metodológica para estudos de avaliação econômica de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil. J Bras Econ da Saúde 2016; 8: 174-184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ministério da Saúde. Diretrizes metodológicas: diretriz de avaliação econômica. 2 ed. Brasília: 2014 https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/diretrizes_metodologicas_diretriz_avaliacao_economica.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kahaleh M, Xu M-M, Zamarripa F. et al. POEM in Latin America. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019; 53: e352-e355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Schwarzer R, Rochau U, Saverno KJ. et al. Systematic overview of cost– effectiveness thresholds in ten countries across four continents. J Comp Eff Res 2015; 4: 485-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar