4.6 Article

Outcomes of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: Extended follow-up of more than 25years with a focus on manometric subtypes

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 1067-1074

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14044

Keywords

achalasia; long-term remission; pneumatic dilation; predictors of recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and AimPneumatic dilation (PD) is the most popular nonsurgical treatment for achalasia. This study investigated predicting factors, including manometric subtypes for symptom recurrence in the long term, in patients with achalasia treated with a single PD. MethodsBetween 1983 and 2013, a total of 107 patients were treated initially with a single PD and included in this longitudinal cohort study. Outcomes were correlated with demographics, symptoms (Eckardt score), and esophagographic and manometric features. Manometric tracings were retrospectively classified according to the three subtypes of the Chicago classification. ResultsNinety-one (85%) patients were successfully treated after the first PD. The median follow-up was 13.8years (interquartile range 7-20). During follow-up, 54% of the patients experienced a clinical relapse. The overall cumulative success rates at 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25years were 64%, 53%, 49%, 42%, 36%, and 36%, respectively. Age <40years, lower esophageal sphincter pressure >15mmHg, a cardia width <5mm, and an esophageal barium column height >1cm 4 to 12weeks post-dilation significantly correlated with symptom recurrence, whereas achalasia subtypes did not significantly correlate with the treatment results. ConclusionPneumatic dilation in achalasia is an effective therapy in the short term, but its effect wanes in the very long term. Young age at presentation, a high lower esophageal sphincter pressure, a narrow cardia, and an esophageal barium column of >1cm after PD are predictive factors for the need of repeated treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available