Evidence Hub

Risk factors and long-term course of gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy: A large-scale multicenter cohort study in Japan

H. Shiwaku, Hiroki Sato, Y. Shimamura, Hirofumi Abe, Junya Shiota, C. Sato, Masaki Ominami, Hiroyuki Sakae et al.

Endoscopy, 2022

2,905 participants · 50 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND : Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and reflux esophagitis remain problems after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). This study aimed to elucidate the risk factors and long-term course of reflux esophagitis and symptomatic GERD after POEM. METHODS : This multicenter cohort study involved 14 high volume centers. Overall, 2905 patients with achalasia-related esophageal motility disorders treated with POEM were analyzed for reflux esophagitis, severe reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles classification C or D), and symptomatic GERD. RESULTS : Reflux esophagitis was diagnosed in 1886 patients (64.9 %). Age ≥ 65 years (risk ratio [RR] 0.85), male sex (RR 1.11), posterior myotomy (RR 1.12), esophageal myotomy > 10 cm (RR 1.12), and gastric myotomy > 2 cm (RR 1.17) were independently associated with reflux esophagitis. Severe reflux esophagitis was diagnosed in 219 patients (7.5 %). Age ≥ 65 years (RR 1.72), previous treatments (RR 2.21), Eckardt score ≥ 7 (RR 0.68), sigmoid-type achalasia (RR 1.40), and esophageal myotomy > 10 cm (RR 1.59) were factors associated with severe reflux esophagitis. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were more effective for reflux esophagitis at 5-year follow-up (P = 0.03) than after 1 year (P = 0.08). Symptomatic GERD was present in 458 patients (15.9 %). Symptom duration ≥ 10 years (RR 1.28), achalasia diagnosis (RR 0.68), integrated relaxation pressure ≥ 26 (RR 0.60), and posterior myotomy (RR 0.80) were associated with symptomatic GERD. The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,905 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free