Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: One of the most used treatments for achalasia is pneumatic dilation of the lower esophageal sphincter to improve esophageal emptying. Multiple treatment protocols have been described with a varying balloon size, number of dilations, inflation pressure, and duration. We aimed to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Hoeij, Froukje B., Prins, Leah I., Smout, André J. P. M., Bredenoord, Arjan J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6849773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13548
_version_ 1783469275340603392
author van Hoeij, Froukje B.
Prins, Leah I.
Smout, André J. P. M.
Bredenoord, Arjan J.
author_facet van Hoeij, Froukje B.
Prins, Leah I.
Smout, André J. P. M.
Bredenoord, Arjan J.
author_sort van Hoeij, Froukje B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: One of the most used treatments for achalasia is pneumatic dilation of the lower esophageal sphincter to improve esophageal emptying. Multiple treatment protocols have been described with a varying balloon size, number of dilations, inflation pressure, and duration. We aimed to identify the most efficient and safe treatment protocol. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies on pneumatic dilation in patients with primary achalasia. Clinical remission was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3 or adequate symptom reduction measured with a similar validated questionnaire. We compared the clinical remission rates and occurrence of complications between different treatment protocols. RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 643 patients. After 6 months, dilation with a 30‐mm or 35‐mm balloon gave comparable mean success rates (81% and 79%, respectively), whereas a series of dilations up to 40 mm had a higher success rate of 90%. Elective additional dilation in patients with insufficient symptom resolution was somewhat more effective than performing a predefined series of dilations: 86% versus 75% after 12 months. Perforations occurred most often during initial dilations, and significantly more often using a 35‐mm balloon than a 30‐mm balloon (3.2 vs 1.0%); P = 0.027. A subsequent 35‐mm dilation was safer than an initial dilation with 35 mm (0.97% vs 9.3% perforations), P = 0.0017. CONCLUSIONS: The most efficient and safe method of dilating achalasia patients is a graded approach starting with a 30‐mm dilation, followed by an elective 35‐mm dilation and 40 mm when there is insufficient symptom relief.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6849773
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68497732019-11-15 Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis van Hoeij, Froukje B. Prins, Leah I. Smout, André J. P. M. Bredenoord, Arjan J. Neurogastroenterol Motil Review Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: One of the most used treatments for achalasia is pneumatic dilation of the lower esophageal sphincter to improve esophageal emptying. Multiple treatment protocols have been described with a varying balloon size, number of dilations, inflation pressure, and duration. We aimed to identify the most efficient and safe treatment protocol. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies on pneumatic dilation in patients with primary achalasia. Clinical remission was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3 or adequate symptom reduction measured with a similar validated questionnaire. We compared the clinical remission rates and occurrence of complications between different treatment protocols. RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 643 patients. After 6 months, dilation with a 30‐mm or 35‐mm balloon gave comparable mean success rates (81% and 79%, respectively), whereas a series of dilations up to 40 mm had a higher success rate of 90%. Elective additional dilation in patients with insufficient symptom resolution was somewhat more effective than performing a predefined series of dilations: 86% versus 75% after 12 months. Perforations occurred most often during initial dilations, and significantly more often using a 35‐mm balloon than a 30‐mm balloon (3.2 vs 1.0%); P = 0.027. A subsequent 35‐mm dilation was safer than an initial dilation with 35 mm (0.97% vs 9.3% perforations), P = 0.0017. CONCLUSIONS: The most efficient and safe method of dilating achalasia patients is a graded approach starting with a 30‐mm dilation, followed by an elective 35‐mm dilation and 40 mm when there is insufficient symptom relief. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-01-30 2019-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6849773/ /pubmed/30697952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13548 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Review Article
van Hoeij, Froukje B.
Prins, Leah I.
Smout, André J. P. M.
Bredenoord, Arjan J.
Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation in achalasia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6849773/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13548
work_keys_str_mv AT vanhoeijfroukjeb efficacyandsafetyofpneumaticdilationinachalasiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT prinsleahi efficacyandsafetyofpneumaticdilationinachalasiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT smoutandrejpm efficacyandsafetyofpneumaticdilationinachalasiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bredenoordarjanj efficacyandsafetyofpneumaticdilationinachalasiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis