Background: 2-year follow-up data from our randomised controlled trial showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy is associated with a significantly higher efficacy than pneumatic dilation as initial treatment of therapy-naive patients with achalasia. Here we report therapeutic success rates in patients treated with peroral endoscopic myotomy compared with pneumatic dilation at the 5-year follow-up. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Hong Kong, and the USA. Adults aged 18–80 years with newly diagnosed symptomatic achalasia (based on an Eckardt score >3) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to peroral endoscopic myotomy or pneumatic dilation using web-based randomisation with a random block size of 8 and stratification according to site. Randomisation concealment for treatment type was double blind until official study enrolment. Treatment was unmasked because of the different technical approach of each procedure. Patients in the pneumatic dilation group were dilated with a single series of 30–35 mm balloons. The need for subsequent dilations in the pneumatic dilation group, and the need for dilation after initial treatment in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group, was considered treatment failure. The primary outcome was therapeutic success (Eckardt score ≤3 in the absence of severe treatment-related complications and no need for retreatment). Analysis of the primary outcome was by modified intention to treat, including all patients randomly assigned to a group, excluding those patients who did not receive treatment or were lost to follow-up. Safety was assessed in all included patients. This study is registered at the Dutch Trial Registry, NTR3593, and is completed. Findings: Between Sept 21, 2012, and July 20, 2015, 182 patients were assessed for eligibility, 133 of whom were included in the study and randomly assigned to peroral endoscopic myotomy (n=67) or pneumatic dilation (n=66). 5-year follow-up data were available for 62 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group and 63 patients in the pneumatic dilation group. 50 (81%) patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group had treatment success at 5 years, compared with 25 (40%) in the pneumatic dilation group, an adjusted absolute difference of 41% (95% CI 25–57; p<0·0001). Reasons for failure were no initial effect of treatment (one patient in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group vs 12 patients in the pneumatic dilation group) and recurrent symptoms causing treatment failure (11 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group [seven patients between 2 and 5 years] vs 25 patients in the pneumatic dilation group [nine patients between 2 and 5 years]); one patient in the pneumatic dilation group had treatment failure due to an adverse event. Proton-pump inhibitor use (mostly daily) was significantly higher after peroral endoscopic myotomy than after pneumatic dilation among patients still in clinical remission (23 [46%] of 50 patients vs three [13%] of 24 patients; p=0·008). 5-year follow-up endoscopy of patients still in clinical remission showed reflux oesophagitis in 14 (33%) of 42 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group (12 [29%] grade A or B, two [5%] grade C or D) and two (13%) of 16 patients in the pneumatic dilation group (two [13%] grade A or B, none grade C or D; p=0·19). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years after treatment. The following non-intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years: a stroke (one [2%]) in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group; and death due to a melanoma (one [2%]) and dementia (one [2%]) in the pneumatic dilation group. Interpretation: Based on this study, peroral endoscopic myotomy should be proposed as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia. Although our study has shown that peroral endoscopic myotomy has greater long-term efficacy with a low risk of major treatment-related complications, this should not lead to abandonment of pneumatic dilation from clinical practice. Ideally, all treatment options should be discussed with treatment-naive patients with achalasia and a shared decision should be made. Funding: Fonds NutsOhra and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Kuipers, T., Ponds, F. A., Fockens, P., Bastiaansen, B. A. J., Lei, A., Oude Nijhuis, R. A. B., Neuhaus, H., Beyna, T., Kandler, J., Frieling, T., Chiu, P. W. Y., Wu, J. C. Y., Wong, V. W. Y., Costamagna, G., Familiari, P., Kahrilas, P. J., Pandolfino, J. E., Smout, A. J. P. M., Bredenoord, A. J., Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in treatment-naive patients with achalasia: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial, <<THE LANCET. GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY>>, 2022; 7 (12): 1103-1111. [doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00300-4] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/229455]
Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in treatment-naive patients with achalasia: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial
Costamagna, Guido;Familiari, Pietro;
2022
Abstract
Background: 2-year follow-up data from our randomised controlled trial showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy is associated with a significantly higher efficacy than pneumatic dilation as initial treatment of therapy-naive patients with achalasia. Here we report therapeutic success rates in patients treated with peroral endoscopic myotomy compared with pneumatic dilation at the 5-year follow-up. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Hong Kong, and the USA. Adults aged 18–80 years with newly diagnosed symptomatic achalasia (based on an Eckardt score >3) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to peroral endoscopic myotomy or pneumatic dilation using web-based randomisation with a random block size of 8 and stratification according to site. Randomisation concealment for treatment type was double blind until official study enrolment. Treatment was unmasked because of the different technical approach of each procedure. Patients in the pneumatic dilation group were dilated with a single series of 30–35 mm balloons. The need for subsequent dilations in the pneumatic dilation group, and the need for dilation after initial treatment in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group, was considered treatment failure. The primary outcome was therapeutic success (Eckardt score ≤3 in the absence of severe treatment-related complications and no need for retreatment). Analysis of the primary outcome was by modified intention to treat, including all patients randomly assigned to a group, excluding those patients who did not receive treatment or were lost to follow-up. Safety was assessed in all included patients. This study is registered at the Dutch Trial Registry, NTR3593, and is completed. Findings: Between Sept 21, 2012, and July 20, 2015, 182 patients were assessed for eligibility, 133 of whom were included in the study and randomly assigned to peroral endoscopic myotomy (n=67) or pneumatic dilation (n=66). 5-year follow-up data were available for 62 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group and 63 patients in the pneumatic dilation group. 50 (81%) patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group had treatment success at 5 years, compared with 25 (40%) in the pneumatic dilation group, an adjusted absolute difference of 41% (95% CI 25–57; p<0·0001). Reasons for failure were no initial effect of treatment (one patient in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group vs 12 patients in the pneumatic dilation group) and recurrent symptoms causing treatment failure (11 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group [seven patients between 2 and 5 years] vs 25 patients in the pneumatic dilation group [nine patients between 2 and 5 years]); one patient in the pneumatic dilation group had treatment failure due to an adverse event. Proton-pump inhibitor use (mostly daily) was significantly higher after peroral endoscopic myotomy than after pneumatic dilation among patients still in clinical remission (23 [46%] of 50 patients vs three [13%] of 24 patients; p=0·008). 5-year follow-up endoscopy of patients still in clinical remission showed reflux oesophagitis in 14 (33%) of 42 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group (12 [29%] grade A or B, two [5%] grade C or D) and two (13%) of 16 patients in the pneumatic dilation group (two [13%] grade A or B, none grade C or D; p=0·19). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years after treatment. The following non-intervention-related serious adverse events occurred between 2 and 5 years: a stroke (one [2%]) in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group; and death due to a melanoma (one [2%]) and dementia (one [2%]) in the pneumatic dilation group. Interpretation: Based on this study, peroral endoscopic myotomy should be proposed as an initial treatment option for patients with achalasia. Although our study has shown that peroral endoscopic myotomy has greater long-term efficacy with a low risk of major treatment-related complications, this should not lead to abandonment of pneumatic dilation from clinical practice. Ideally, all treatment options should be discussed with treatment-naive patients with achalasia and a shared decision should be made. Funding: Fonds NutsOhra and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
