Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is POEM the Answer for Management of Spastic Esophageal Disorders? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Aims

Spastic esophageal disorders (SEDs) include spastic achalasia (type III), diffuse esophageal spasm (DES), and nutcracker/jackhammer esophagus (JH). Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of achalasia. Recently, POEM has been indicated for the treatment of SEDs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the clinical success and safety of POEM in SEDs.

Methods

We searched several databases from 01/01/2007 to 01/10/2016 to identify studies (with five or more patients) on POEM for the treatment of SEDs. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for clinical success and adverse events (AEs) were calculated for all SEDs. Clinical success was defined as Eckardt scores of ≤3 and/or improvement in severity of dysphagia based on achalasia disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire. The WPRs for clinical success and AEs were analyzed using fixed- or random-effects model based on heterogeneity. The proportionate difference in clinical success and post-procedure adverse event rates among individual types of SEDs was also calculated.

Results

A total of eight observational studies with 179 patients were included in the final analysis. Two studies were of good quality and six were of fair quality based on the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool. The WPR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for cumulative clinical success of POEM in all SEDs was 87% (78, 93%), I 2 = 37%. The total number of patients for individual disorders, i.e., type III achalasia, JH, and DES, was 116, 37, and 18, respectively. The WPRs for clinical success of POEM for type III achalasia, DES, and JH were 92, 88, and 72%, respectively. Proportion difference of WPR for clinical success was significantly higher for type III achalasia in comparison with JH (20%, P = 0.01). The WPR with 95% CI for AEs of POEM in all SEDs was 14% (9, 20%), I 2 = 0%. The WPRs for post-procedure adverse events for type III achalasia, DES, and JH were 11, 14, and 16%, respectively. There was no difference in safety of POEM among individual SEDs.

Conclusion

POEM is an effective and safe therapeutic modality for the treatment of spastic esophageal disorders.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Kahrilas PJ, et al. Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24:57–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Roman S, Kahrilas PJ. Management of spastic disorders of the esophagus. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013;42:27–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Burmeister S. Review of current diagnosis and management of diffuse esophageal spasm, nutcracker esophagus/spastic nutcracker and hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;21:543–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Patti MG, Pellegrini CA, Arcerito M, et al. Comparison of medical and minimally invasive surgical therapy for primary esophageal motility disorders. Arch Surg. 1995;130:609–615. (discussion 615–616).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Teitelbaum EN, Soper NJ, Santos BF, et al. Symptomatic and physiologic outcomes one year after peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM) for treatment of achalasia. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3359–3365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khashab MA, El Zein M, Kumbhari V, et al. Comprehensive analysis of efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy performed by a gastroenterologist in the endoscopy unit: a single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:117–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barbieri LA, Hassan C, Rosati R, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of POEM for achalasia. United European Gastroenterol J. 2015;3:325–334.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–2012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, et al. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. CMAJ. 1994;150:1611–1615.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3.

  12. NIH. Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies with No Control Group. National Institutes of Health Web site. 2014. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/before-after.

  13. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JPT, Green S. Identifying and measuring heterogeneity. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.0.1. Available at: http://www.handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_2_identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneity.htm. Accessed 10 May 2016.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramchandani M, Reddy DN, Darisetty S, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia cardia: treatment analysis and follow up of over 200 consecutive patients at a single center. Dig Endosc. 2016;28:19–26.

  17. Werner YB, Costamagna G, Swanstrom LL, et al. Clinical response to peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Gut. 2016;65:899–906.

  18. Hoppo T, Thakkar SJ, Schumacher LY, et al. A utility of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) across the spectrum of esophageal motility disorders. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:233–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Inoue H, Sato H, Ikeda H, et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: a series of 500 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:256–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen X, Li QP, Ji GZ, et al. Two-year follow-up for 45 patients with achalasia who underwent peroral endoscopic myotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47:890–896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ling T, Guo H, Zou X. Effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia patients with failure of prior pneumatic dilation: a prospective case-control study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:1609–1613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kurian AA, Dunst CM, Sharata A, et al. Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy: defining the learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:719–725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumbhari V, Tieu AH, Onimaru M, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of Type III achalasia in 75 patients: a multicenter comparative study. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3:E195–E201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kumbhari V, Besharati S, Abdelgelil A, et al. Intraprocedural fluoroscopy to determine the extent of the cardiomyotomy during per-oral endoscopic myotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1451–1456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bortolotti M, Mari C, Lopilato C, et al. Effects of sildenafil on esophageal motility of patients with idiopathic achalasia. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:253–257.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pratap N, Kalapala R, Darisetty S, et al. Achalasia cardia subtyping by high-resolution manometry predicts the therapeutic outcome of pneumatic balloon dilatation. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;17:48–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pandolfino JE, Kwiatek MA, Nealis T, et al. Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1526–1533.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rohof WO, Salvador R, Annese V, et al. Outcomes of treatment for achalasia depend on manometric subtype. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:718–725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Salvador R, Costantini M, Zaninotto G, et al. The preoperative manometric pattern predicts the outcome of surgical treatment for esophageal achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1635–1645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leconte M, Douard R, Gaudric M, et al. Functional results after extended myotomy for diffuse oesophageal spasm. Br J Surg. 2007;94:1113–1118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sumiyama K, Gostout CJ, Rajan E, et al. Submucosal endoscopy with mucosal flap safety valve. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:688–694.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

MAK was involved in conception and design; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of article; and final approval of article. VK was involved in conception and design; drafting of article; critical revision; and final approval of article. SN was involved in drafting of article; critical revision; and final approval of article. AI, Y-IC, YHC, and MB were involved in data collection and final approval of article. RN was involved in search strategy and final approval of article. MKI was involved in analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of article; and final approval of article. MO and AS were involved in data collection; critical revision; and final approval of article. VB was involved in critical revision and final approval of article. LS, HI, and AR were involved in critical revision and final approval of article. MAK was involved in conception and design; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of article; critical revision; and final approval of article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

    Muhammad Ali Khan, Richard Nollan & Mohammad Kashif Ismail

  2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans St., Suite 7125 B, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

    Vivek Kumbhari, Saowanee Ngamruengphong, Amr Ismail, Yen-I Chen, Yamile Haito Chavez, Majidah Bukhari & Mouen A. Khashab

  3. Digestive Diseases Center, Showa University Koto-Toyosu Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Manabu Onimaru, Valerio Balassone & Haruhiro Inoue

  4. Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, The Oregon Clinic, Portland, OR, USA

    Ahmed Sharata & Lee Swanstrom

  5. Humanitas University, Milan, Italy

    Alessandro Repici

Authors
  1. Muhammad Ali Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vivek Kumbhari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saowanee Ngamruengphong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amr Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yen-I Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yamile Haito Chavez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Majidah Bukhari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Richard Nollan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mohammad Kashif Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Manabu Onimaru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Valerio Balassone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ahmed Sharata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Lee Swanstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Haruhiro Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Alessandro Repici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Mouen A. Khashab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mouen A. Khashab.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Khashab is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Drs. Muhammad Ali Khan, Vivek Kumbhari, Saowanee Ngamruengphong, Amr Ismail, Yen-I Chen, Yamile Haito Chavez, Majidah Bukhari, Richard Nollan, Mohammad Kashif Ismail, Manabu Onimaru, Valerio Balassone, Ahmed Sharata, Lee Swanstrom, Haruhiro Inoue, and Alessandro Repici have no conflicts of interest or financial relationships relevant to this article.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Table 1 Quality assessment of studies with NIH quality assessment tool for before–after studies with no control group
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, M.A., Kumbhari, V., Ngamruengphong, S. et al. Is POEM the Answer for Management of Spastic Esophageal Disorders? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci 62, 35–44 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-016-4373-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-016-4373-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation