Management of patients after failed peroral endoscopic myotomy: a multicenter study

Abstract

Background Although peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is highly effective for the management of achalasia, clinical failures may occur. The optimal management of patients who fail POEM is not well known. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different management strategies in patients who had failed POEM.

Methods This was an international multicenter retrospective study at 16 tertiary centers between January 2012 and November 2019. All patients who underwent POEM and experienced persistent or recurrent symptoms (Eckardt score > 3) were included. The primary outcome was to compare the rates of clinical success (Eckardt score ≤ 3) between different management strategies.

Results 99 patients (50 men [50.5 %]; mean age 51.4 [standard deviation (SD) 16.2]) experienced clinical failure during the study period, with a mean (SD) Eckardt score of 5.4 (0.3). A total of 29 patients (32.2 %) were managed conservatively and 70 (71 %) underwent retreatment (repeat POEM 33 [33 %], pneumatic dilation 30 [30 %], and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) 7 [7.1 %]). During a median follow-up of 10 (interquartile range 3 – 20) months, clinical success was highest in patients who underwent repeat POEM (25 /33 [76 %]; mean [SD] Eckardt score 2.1 [2.1]), followed by pneumatic dilation (18/30 [60 %]; Eckardt score 2.8 [2.3]), and LHM (2/7 [29 %]; Eckardt score 4 [1.8]; P = 0.12). A total of 11 patients in the conservative group (37.9 %; mean Eckardt score 4 [1.8]) achieved clinical success.

Conclusion This study comprehensively assessed an international cohort of patients who underwent management of failed POEM. Repeat POEM and pneumatic dilation achieved acceptable clinical success, with excellent safety profiles.

^* Contributed equally to this article

Publication History

Received: 20 June 2020

Accepted after revision: 16 November 2020

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 November 2020

Article published online:
21 January 2021

• References

• 1 Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 265-271
• 2 Stavropoulos SN, Desilets DJ. AOSCAR POEM White Paper Committee. et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy white paper summary. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1-15
• 3 Khashab MA, Familiari P, Draganov PV. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is effective and safe in non-achalasia esophageal motility disorders: an international multicenter study. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E1031-E1036
• 4 Sharata A, Kurian AA, Dunst CM. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is safe and effective in the setting of prior endoscopic intervention. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17: 1188-1192
• 5 Zhou PH, Li QL, Yao LQ. et al. Peroral endoscopic remyotomy for failed Heller myotomy: a prospective single-center study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 161-166
• 6 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; 32: 1042-1049
• 7 Hu JW, Li QL, Zhou PH. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for advanced achalasia with sigmoid-shaped esophagus: long-term outcomes from a prospective, single-center study. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 2841-2850
• 8 Werner YB, Hakanson B, Martinek J. et al. Endoscopic or surgical myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia. NEJM 2019; 381: 2219-2229
• 9 Khashab MA, Valeshabad AK, Modayil R. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage by using a standardized approach for malignant biliary obstruction: rendezvous versus direct transluminal techniques (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 734-741
• 10 Ponds FA, Fockens P, Lei A. et al. Effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs pneumatic dilation on symptom severity and treatment outcomes among treatment-naive patients with achalasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 322: 134-144
• 11 Xu MM, Kahaleh M. Recurrent symptoms after per-oral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia: Redo, dilate, or operate? A call for a tailored approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 102-103
• 12 Li QL, Yao LQ, Xu XY. et al. Repeat peroral endoscopic myotomy: a salvage option for persistent/recurrent symptoms. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 134-140
• 13 Tyberg A, Seewald S, Sharaiha RZ. et al. A multicenter international registry of redo per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) after failed POEM. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1208-1211
• 14 Giulini L, Dubecz A, Stein HJ. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy after failed POEM and multiple balloon dilatations: Better late than never. Chirurg 2017; 88: 303-306
• 15 Brewer Gutierrez OI, Moran RA, Familiari P. et al. Long-term outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia patients with a minimum follow-up of 4 years: a multicenter study. Endosc Int Open 2020; 08: E650-E655
• 16 Eckardt VF, Aignherr C, Bernhard G. Predictors of outcome in patients with achalasia treated by pneumatic dilation. Gastroenterology 1992; 103: 1732-1738
• 17 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
• 18 Khashab MA, Messallam AA, Onimaru M. et al. International multicenter experience with peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of spastic esophageal disorders refractory to medical therapy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1170-1177
• 19 van Hoeij FB, Ponds FA, Werner Y. et al. Management of recurrent symptoms after per-oral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 95-101