Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Post-POEM reflux: who’s at risk?

  • 2019 SAGES Oral
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) is a less invasive alternative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for patients with achalasia. While a partial fundoplication is often performed concurrently with laparoscopic myotomy, an endoscopic approach does not offer this and leaves patients prone to post-operative reflux. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify patients with post-POEM reflux using BRAVO pH and endoscopic evaluations, and (2) investigate risk factors associated with post-POEM reflux and esophagitis to optimize patient selection for POEM and identify those who will benefit from a proactive approach to post-operative reflux management.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent POEM between January 2011 and July 2017 at a single institution was performed. Demographics along with pre-POEM and post-POEM variables were obtained. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed, using p values ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance.

Results

Forty-six patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 358 days. Mean age was 58 (19.2); 61% were female. Thirty-six patients underwent 48-h BRAVO pH testing after POEM, which revealed abnormal esophageal acid exposure in 15 patients (41.7%). There was a correlation between positive BRAVO results and presence of preoperative esophagitis (p = 0.02). Only 13% of patients had symptom-related reflux episodes based on the Symptom Associated Probability of the BRAVO study. Post-operative endoscopy revealed 6 patients with esophagitis, compared to 4 patients who had esophagitis on preoperative endoscopy. Only higher preoperative Eckardt score was significantly associated with endoscopic evidence of esophagitis post-POEM.

Conclusions

Reflux is common after POEM. A majority of patients with a positive BRAVO study are asymptomatic, which is concerning. Objective follow-up is of paramount importance with upper endoscopy and ambulatory pH monitoring being the gold standard. Elevated preoperative Eckardt score and esophagitis are associated with post-POEM reflux. This population warrants close surveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Vela MF (2013) ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol 108(8):1238–1249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M et al (2015) The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil 27(2):160–174

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheatham JG, Wong RK (2011) Current approach to the treatment of achalasia. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 13(3):219–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moonen A, Annese V, Belmans A et al (2016) Long-term results of the European achalasia trial: a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing pneumatic dilation versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Gut 65(5):732–739

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campos GM, Vittinghoff E, Rabl C et al (2009) Endosocpic and surgical treatments for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 249(1):45–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayaski Y et al (2010) Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 42(4):265–271

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schneider AM, Louis BE, Warren HF, Farivar AS, Schembre DB, Aye RW (2016) A matched comparison of per oral endoscopic myotomy to laparoscopic heller myotomy in the treatment of achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg 20(11):1789–1796

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhayani NH, Kurian AA, Dunst CM, Sharata AM, Rieder E, Swanstrom LL (2014) A comparative study on comprehensive, objective outcomes of laparoscopic Heller myotomy with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia. Ann Surg 259(6):1098–1103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Richter JR (2013) Achalasia and lower esophageal sphincter anatomy and physiology: implications for per oral esophageal myotomy technique. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 15(3):122–126

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chander B, Hanley-Williams N, Deng Y, Sheth A (2012) 24 versus 48-hour BRAVO pH monitoring. J Clin Gastroenterol 46(3):197–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tseng D, Rizvi AZ, Fennerty MB et al (2005) Forty-eight-hour pH monitoring increases sensitivity in detecting abnormal esophageal acid exposure. J Gastrointest Surg 9(8):1043–1051

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones EL, Meara MP, Schwartz JS, Hazey JW, Perry KA (2016) Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms do not correlate with objective pH testing after peroral endoscopic myotomy. Surg Endosc 30(3):947–952

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Streets CG, DeMeester TRJ (2003) Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: why, when and what to do. J Clin Gastroenterol 37(1):14–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Li QL, Chen WF, Zhou PH et al (2013) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a clinical comparative study of endoscopic full-thickness and circular muscle myotomy. J Am Coll Surg 217(3):442–451

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Crookes PF, Corkill S, DeMeester TR (1997) Gastroesophageal reflux in achalasia. When is reflux really reflux? Dig Des Sci 42(7):1354–1361

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Caciano SL, Inman CL, Gockel-Blessing EE, Weiss EP (2015) Effects of dietary acid load on exercise metabolism and anaerobic exercise performance. J Sports Sci Med 14(2):364–371

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Park Y, Subar AF, Hollenbeck Am Schatzkin A (2011) Dietary fiber intake and mortality in the NIH-AARP diet and health study. Arch Intern Med 171(12):1061–1068

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tilg H, Moschen AR (2015) Food, immunity, and the microbiome. Gastroenterology 148(6):1107–1119

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Angel KF, Marks JM (2017) The future of achalasia therapy: expanding the minimally invasive armamentarium and risk of secondary gastroesophageal reflux. J Thorac Dis 9(10):3659–3662

    Google Scholar 

  20. Familiari P, Greco S, Gigante G et al (2016) Gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy: analysis of clinical, procedural and functional factors, associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and esophagitis. Dig Endosc 28(1):33–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharata AM, Dunst CM, Pescarus R et al (2015) Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal primary motility disorders: analysis of 100 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 19(1):161–170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gerson LB, Shetler K, Triadafilopoulos G (2002) Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in asymptomatic individuals. Gastroenterology 123(2):461–467

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zerbib F (2015) The prevalence of oesophagitis in “silent” gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: higher than expected? Dig Liver Dis 47(1):12–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumta NA, Kedia P, Sethi A, Kahaleh M (2015) Transoral incisionless fundoplication for treatment of refractory GERD after peroral endoscopic myotomy. Gastointest Endosc 81(1):224–225

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tyberg A, Choi A, Gaidhane M, Kahaleh M (2018) Transoral incisionless fundoplication for reflux after peroral endoscopic myotomy: a crucial addition to our arsenal. Endosc Int Open 6(5):C2

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Chavez YH, Ngamruengphong S, Bukhari M, Chen Y, Aguila G, Khashab MA (2017) Transoral incisionless endoscopic fundoplication guided by impedance planimetry to treat severe GERD symptoms after per-oral endoscopic myotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 85(1):254–255

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shiwaku H, Inoue H, Sasaki T et al (2016) A prospective analysis of GERD after POEM on anterior myotomy. Surg Endosc 30(6):2496–2504

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan Sippey.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Marks has provided consultant services for Boston Scientific and Olympus. Drs. Arevalo, Sippey, Martin-del-Campo, and Ali have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arevalo, G., Sippey, M., Martin-del-Campo, L.A. et al. Post-POEM reflux: who’s at risk?. Surg Endosc 34, 3163–3168 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07086-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07086-1

Keywords

Navigation