ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Periprocedural safety profile of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM)-a retrospective analysis of adverse events according to two different classifications.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- "You gotta lift to get ripped": injection lift myotomy.Endoscopy · 2024Article
- Routine esophagram to detect early esophageal leakage after peroral endoscopic myotomy.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is nowadays a standard method for treatment of achalasia; nevertheless, it remains an invasive intervention with corresponding risk of adverse events (AEs). The classification and grading of AEs are still a matter of discussion. The aim of our retrospective study was to assess the occurrence of all "undesirable" events and "true" adverse events in patients undergoing POEM and to compare the outcomes when either Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) or American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon classification applied.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of prospectively managed database of all patients who had undergone POEM between December 2012 and August 2018. We assessed the pre-, peri-, and early-postoperative (up to patient's discharge) undesirable events (including those not fulfilling criteria for AEs) and "true" AEs according the definition in either of the classifications.
resultsA total of 231 patients have successfully undergone 244 POEM procedures (13 × re-POEM). Twenty-nine procedures (11.9%) passed uneventfully, while in 215 procedures (88.1%), a total of 440 undesirable events occurred. The CDC identified 27 AEs (17 minor, 10 major) occurring in 23/244 (9.4%) procedures. The ASGE lexicon identified identical 27 AEs (21 mild or moderate, 6 severe or fatal) resulting in the severity distribution of AEs being the only difference between the two classifications. Only the absence of previous treatment was found to be a risk factor [p = 0.047, OR with 95% CI: 4.55 (1.02; 20.25)] in the combined logistic regression model.
conclusionUndesirable events are common in patients undergoing POEM but the incidence of true AEs is low according to both classifications. Severe adverse events are infrequent irrespective of the classification applied. CDC may be more appropriate than ASGE lexicon for classifying POEM-related AEs given a surgical nature of this procedure.
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.