ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2021
Peroral endoscopic myotomy is equally safe and highly effective treatment option in achalasia patients with both lower and higher ASA classification status.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system was developed as a simple categorization of patients' physiological status that predicts the operative risk. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a less invasive alternative to surgical myotomy in achalasia. As such, POEM seems to be an appealing option for high-risk patients with achalasia. However, there are no studies which systematically analyzed the outcomes of POEM among patients with different ASA classes. Hence, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of POEM in patients with lower and higher ASA classes.
methodsMedical records of all achalasia patients who underwent POEM at our institution between April 2014 and May 2019 were reviewed. Patients were categorized arbitrarily into two groups, lower ASA class (ASA I and II combined) and higher ASA class (ASA class III and IV combined). Demographic and procedural details, timed barium swallow (TBE), high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM), pH study findings and Eckardt scores were compared between the two groups. Baseline characteristics were compared using Chi-square test and two-sample t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.
resultsA total of 144 patients met our study criteria (lower ASA class, n = 44; and higher ASA class, n = 100). Patients in higher ASA class were significantly more obese and older. More patients in lower ASA class had prior Heller myotomy and more patients in higher ASA Class had prior botulinum toxin injections. Procedural parameters were similar in both groups. Procedural complications were infrequent and were also similar in the two groups. The length of stay, 30-day readmission rate, reflux symptoms and esophageal pH study findings were also comparable between the two groups. Treatment success was similar in both groups, 97.7% in lower ASA class versus 92% in higher ASA class (p = 0.19). At 2-month follow-up, both groups had significant improvement in HREM and TBE parameters.
conclusionPOEM is a very safe and highly effective treatment option for achalasia patients with advanced ASA class similar to lower ASA class patients. POEM may be considered as the preferred choice for myotomy in these high-risk achalasia patients due to its low morbidity and high efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.