-
JAMA May 2015Achalasia significantly affects patients' quality of life and can be difficult to diagnose and treat. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Achalasia significantly affects patients' quality of life and can be difficult to diagnose and treat.
OBJECTIVE
To review the diagnosis and management of achalasia, with a focus on phenotypic classification pertinent to therapeutic outcomes.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Literature review and MEDLINE search of articles from January 2004 to February 2015. A total of 93 articles were included in the final literature review addressing facets of achalasia epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials focusing on endoscopic or surgical therapy for achalasia were included (734 total patients).
FINDINGS
A diagnosis of achalasia should be considered when patients present with dysphagia, chest pain, and refractory reflux symptoms after an endoscopy does not reveal a mechanical obstruction or an inflammatory cause of esophageal symptoms. Manometry should be performed if achalasia is suspected. Randomized controlled trials support treatments focused on disrupting the lower esophageal sphincter with pneumatic dilation (70%-90% effective) or laparoscopic myotomy (88%-95% effective). Patients with achalasia have a variable prognosis after endoscopic or surgical myotomy based on subtypes, with type II (absent peristalsis with abnormal pan-esophageal high-pressure patterns) having a very favorable outcome (96%) and type I (absent peristalsis without abnormal pressure) having an intermediate prognosis (81%) that is inversely associated with the degree of esophageal dilatation. In contrast, type III (absent peristalsis with distal esophageal spastic contractions) is a spastic variant with less favorable outcomes (66%) after treatment of the lower esophageal sphincter.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Achalasia should be considered when dysphagia is present and not explained by an obstruction or inflammatory process. Responses to treatment vary based on which achalasia subtype is present.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins; Chest Pain; Deglutition Disorders; Dilatation; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Esophageal Achalasia; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower; Esophagus; Humans; Manometry; Prognosis
PubMed: 25965233
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.2996 -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Feb 2020Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown etiology characterized by degeneration of the myenteric plexus, which results in impaired relaxation of the...
Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown etiology characterized by degeneration of the myenteric plexus, which results in impaired relaxation of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), along with the loss of organized peristalsis in the esophageal body. The criterion standard for diagnosing achalasia is high-resolution esophageal manometry showing incomplete relaxation of the EGJ coupled with the absence of organized peristalsis. Three achalasia subtypes have been defined based on high-resolution manometry findings in the esophageal body. Treatment of patients with achalasia has evolved in recent years with the introduction of peroral endoscopic myotomy. Other treatment options include botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilation, and Heller myotomy. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of achalasia, based on an updated assessment of the individual and comparative effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost of the 4 aforementioned achalasia therapies.
Topics: Acetylcholine Release Inhibitors; Botulinum Toxins; Dilatation; Disease Management; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Esophageal Achalasia; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower; Heller Myotomy; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Manometry; Myotomy; Societies, Medical; United States
PubMed: 31839408
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.231 -
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Feb 2023There is conflicting evidence about the association between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and esophageal motility disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is conflicting evidence about the association between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and esophageal motility disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate esophageal manometry findings in EoE.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. All articles from 1990 to 2021 with EoE patients who underwent esophageal manometry were eligible. We also included pertinent abstracts from national conferences from 2015 to 2020. The primary outcomes were the prevalence of specific Chicago 3 Classification (CCv3) diagnoses in EoE, as well as broader categories of non-relaxing lower esophageal sphincter, and major and minor peristaltic disorders. When multiple studies reported a specific outcome, we performed random effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled prevalence of each outcome. To reduce heterogeneity, we restricted meta-analysis to high-resolution manometry (HRM) studies only.
KEY RESULTS
Of 763 publications identified, 27 original studies met criteria for inclusion, encompassing 706 EoE patients; 14 studies (425 patients) had HRM and underwent meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of any motility abnormality was 53% (95% CI: 43%-63%), largely comprised of minor motility disorders such as ineffective esophageal motility and fragmented peristalsis. Major motility disorders, classified by CCv3, were less common in EoE, with pooled prevalence of 2% (0%-7%), 10% (5%-16%), and 1% (0%-3%), for achalasia, esophagogastric-junction outflow obstruction, and hypercontractile disorders, respectively.
CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES
Non-specific motility disorders were common in patients with EoE, but major motility disorders were rare. Further studies are needed to determine the relationship between eosinophilic infiltration and the clinical relevance of abnormal esophageal motility findings in this population.
Topics: Humans; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Esophageal Motility Disorders; Esophageal Achalasia; Manometry; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower
PubMed: 36168184
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.14475 -
Clinical and Experimental... 2014Constipation is a common complaint in adults. Lactitol is an osmotic disaccharide laxative that increases fecal volume and stimulates peristalsis. In this paper, we... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Constipation is a common complaint in adults. Lactitol is an osmotic disaccharide laxative that increases fecal volume and stimulates peristalsis. In this paper, we present the first meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerance of lactitol for adult constipation.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE(®) and Embase, with no date or language restrictions, for studies of lactitol supplementation on adult constipation. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on pre- to posttreatment changes in stool frequency and consistency with lactitol among all studies, as well as a comparison of efficacy and tolerance outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lactitol versus lactulose.
RESULTS
A total of eleven studies representing 663 distinct patients were included in the final analysis, including five single-arm studies, four RCTs comparing lactitol with lactulose, one RCT comparing lactitol with placebo, and one nonrandomized controlled trial comparing lactitol with stimulant laxatives. Weekly stool frequency was significantly increased with lactitol compared with baseline (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 1.56, P<0.001). Stool consistency also improved over the supplementation period with lactitol (SMD: 1.04, P<0.001). Approximately one-third of patients experienced an adverse event; however, symptoms were generally mild and rarely (5%) resulted in study withdrawal. In RCTs of lactitol versus lactulose, lactitol was slightly more effective than lactulose in increasing weekly stool frequency (SMD: 0.19, P=0.06). No statistically significant differences between lactitol and lactulose were identified in any other efficacy or tolerance outcome. Lactitol demonstrated favorable efficacy and tolerance in individual studies when compared to stimulant laxatives and placebo.
CONCLUSION
Lactitol supplementation is well tolerated and improves symptoms of adult constipation. The efficacy and tolerance of lactitol and lactulose are similar, with a trend for more frequent stools with lactitol. Limited evidence suggests lactitol is superior to stimulant laxatives and placebo for relieving constipation symptoms.
PubMed: 25050074
DOI: 10.2147/CEG.S58952 -
Clinical and Translational... Oct 2020In randomized controlled trials, L-menthol inhibits gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopy. Our goal was to quantitatively synthesize the available evidence to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
In randomized controlled trials, L-menthol inhibits gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopy. Our goal was to quantitatively synthesize the available evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of L-menthol for gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched for relevant studies published up to January 2020 in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The main outcomes consisted of the proportion of no peristalsis, proportion of no or mild peristalsis, adenoma detection rate, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Eight randomized controlled trials analyzing 1,366 subjects were included. According to the pooled data, L-menthol significantly improved the proportion of no peristalsis (odds ratio [OR] = 6.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.94-8.57, P < 0.00001), and the proportion of no or mild peristalsis (OR = 7.89, 95% CI = 5.03-12.39, P < 0.00001) compared with the placebo, whereas it was not associated with an improvement in the adenoma detection rate (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.54-1.99, P = 0.92). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 0.75-2.59, P = 0.29).
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study support the use of L-menthol to suppress gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopic procedure.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastric Mucosa; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Humans; Menthol; Peristalsis; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spasm; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33031198
DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000252 -
Pharmacotherapy Apr 2019Glucagon is frequently used for the relief of esophageal impactions. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Glucagon is frequently used for the relief of esophageal impactions. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucagon for acute esophageal foreign body and food impactions. PubMed, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 1, 2018. Retrospective, observational, and randomized controlled trials assessing glucagon for the relief of acute esophageal foreign body and food impaction were included. There were no language or age restrictions. Only studies conducted on humans and with a comparator (e.g., control or placebo) were included. Study quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Quality of evidence analysis was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. A total of 1988 studies were identified, and five studies with a total of 1185 subjects were included. Treatment success occurred in 213 of 706 (30.2%) patients in the glucagon group and 158 of 479 (33.0%) patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.17, p=0.42). There was minimal statistical heterogeneity (I = 14%, p=0.33). No publication bias was identified. Adverse events were identified in 24 (15.0%) patients in the glucagon group and 0 (0%) patients in the placebo group (risk difference [RD] 0.18, 95% CI 0.03-0.33, p=0.02). Vomiting events occurred more frequently in the glucagon group (17 of 160 [10.6%] vs 0 of 53 [0%]) but was not statistically significant (RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03-0.17, p=0.19). Glucagon was not associated with a difference in treatment success but had a higher rate of adverse events for the treatment of esophageal foreign body and food impaction. Further controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of glucagon with adequate power to assess adverse events.
Topics: Bezoars; Esophagus; Foreign Bodies; Gastrointestinal Agents; Glucagon; Humans; Peristalsis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30779190
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2236 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Aug 2015Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative, as compared with conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy for treating achalasia...
BACKGROUND
Peroral endoscopic esophageal myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative, as compared with conventional laparoscopic Heller myotomy for treating achalasia patients. In the last years, a number of prospective and retrospective experiences with POEM use for achalasia have been published.
METHODS
Relevant publications in which patients affected by achalasia underwent POEM treatment were identified by PubMed databases for the period 2010 - 2013. From each study, we extracted the number and type of major complications (defined as those requiring any additional medical or surgical intervention). Data were pooled, using random-effects models. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by using Cochran's Q and the I (2) statistic.
RESULTS
We found 16 studies that provided data on 551 patients. The median surveillance period was 6 months (range: 3-12). The median of mean POEM duration was 156 minutes (range: 42-112). Median myotomy length was 10 cm (range: 6-14). Technical and clinical success were reported in 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) and 93% (407/428; 95% CI: 90-95%). No heterogeneity (I (2 )= 0%) or publication bias was present in both estimates. When limiting the analysis only to adverse events that require medical or surgical interventions, major adverse events occurred in 14% (95% CI: 11-17%); however, only one patient needed post-POEM surgery (0.2%; 95% CI: 0-0.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
POEM appeared to be a highly feasible and effective endoscopic treatment for achalasia. Despite POEM being apparently associated with relatively high morbidity, most patients are successfully managed conservatively, so that POEM appears as a very safe procedure; however, POEM should only be performed in centers able to treat POEM complications, such as pneumothorax or pneumoperitoneum.
PubMed: 26279840
DOI: 10.1177/2050640615581732 -
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2021The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety in treating gastric stromal tumours by laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning surgery. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety in treating gastric stromal tumours by laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning surgery.
METHODS
The randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which are about the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning surgery in treating gastric stromal tumours were searched from the PubMed (1998-1990-2018.6), Wanfang Data (1990-2018.6), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979-2018.6) and International Statistical Institute (1998-2018.6). The data were extracted from these trials, and the meta-analysis was made through from RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Six RCTs involving 451 patients were included in the study (227 patients in the laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group and 224 patients in laparoscopic surgery group). Compared with laparoscopic surgery group, this meta-analysis showed that laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group could shorten the post-operation hospital stay (P < 0.05) and reduce the intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in others between the two groups, such as operation time (P > 0.05), post-operative time of recovery of intestinal peristalsis (P > 0.05) and the total hospital stay (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Compared with laparoscopic surgery group, the better total effect occurs in laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group for the treatment of gastric stromal tumours is better. Laparoscopy combined with gastroscopy positioning group for the gastric stromal tumours is acceptable.
PubMed: 33723177
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_294_19 -
Journal of Smooth Muscle Research =... 2023Esophageal achalasia is classified into three subtypes according to manometric findings. Since several factors, including clinical characteristics and treatment...
Esophageal achalasia is classified into three subtypes according to manometric findings. Since several factors, including clinical characteristics and treatment response, have been reported to differ among the subtypes, the underlying pathogenesis may also differ. However, a comprehensive understanding regarding the differences is still lacking. We therefore performed a systematic review of the differences among the three subtypes of achalasia to clarify the current level of comprehension. In terms of clinical features, type III, which is the least frequently diagnosed of the three subtypes, showed the oldest age and most severe symptoms, such as chest pain. In contrast, type I showed a higher prevalence of lung complications, and type II showed weight loss more frequently than the other types. Histopathologically, type I showed a high loss of ganglion cells in esophagus, and on a molecular basis, type III had elevated serum pro-inflammatory cytokine levels. In addition to peristalsis and the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function, the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) function of achalasia has attracted attention, as an impaired UES function is associated with severe aspiration pneumonia, a fatal complication of achalasia. Previous studies have indicated that type II shows a higher UES pressure than the other subtypes, while an earlier decline in the UES function has been confirmed in type I. Differences in the treatment response are also crucial for managing achalasia patients. A number of studies have reported better responses in type II cases and less favorable responses in type III cases to pneumatic dilatation. These differences help shed light on the pathogenesis of achalasia and support its clinical management according to the subtype.
Topics: Humans; Esophageal Achalasia; Manometry; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower; Esophageal Sphincter, Upper; Chest Pain
PubMed: 36948611
DOI: 10.1540/jsmr.59.14 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023Button battery (BB) ingestions may cause severe and possibly fatal complications, especially if the battery is located in the esophagus. The application of oral honey... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Button battery (BB) ingestions may cause severe and possibly fatal complications, especially if the battery is located in the esophagus. The application of oral honey has recently been proposed by the National Capital Poison Center in the USA and in an ESPGHAN position paper in Europe, but clinical trials and experimental studies are limited. The goal of this systematic review was to analyze the evidence for this approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of clinical trials and experimental studies on the oral application of honey after BB ingestion in children was performed. Inclusion criteria according to the PICO format were patient age 0-18 years, ingestion of BB, oral administration of honey or other substances, all and studies, as well as reported complication rate, esophageal injury, and mortality. A manual search in the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane was performed to identify relevant search terms to form the following queries and to construct the extensive search. Furthermore, the search was extended by using snowballing on the reports reference lists. The review is registered at Research Registry. The identifying number is reviewregistry1581.
RESULTS
We found four publications that investigated the effects of honey after button battery ingestion. Three of these presented experimental and results and one reported a clinical retrospective study of 8 patients.
CONCLUSION
Follow up studies are required to further elucidate the effectiveness of the treatment with honey. The time intervals in which the use of honey is effective is not clear. Furthermore, a physiological model is needed for testing, preferably mimicking peristalsis and dynamic flow of the applied substances. However, since it is easy to apply and of minimal risk in patients over one year of age, honey should be considered a possible treatment option during the interval between presentation and endoscopic removal of the retained BB.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analyses/registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analysesdetails/643e9df96750410027ee11b0/, identifier: reviewregistry1581.
PubMed: 37842023
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1259780