Do preoperative endoscopic interventions predict symptom recurrence or reintervention after peroral endoscopic myotomy?

Background: Studies assessing outcomes of patients undergoing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) after botulinum injection or dilation have had various results with respect to failure, although this has not been differentiated between lack of clinical response and recurrence. We hypothesize that patients with previous endoscopic intervention(s) are more likely to recur than treatment-naïve patients.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients that underwent POEM for achalasia at a single tertiary care center between 2011 and 2022. Patients were excluded if they had previous myotomy (POEM or Heller). The remaining patients were stratified into treatment-naïve patients (TN), those with previous botulinum injection (BTX), those with previous dilatation (BD), and those with both previous endoscopic interventions (BOTH). Primary outcome was recurrence indicated by clinical symptoms or need for repeat endoscopic intervention or surgery after originally having clinical resolution (Eckardt ≤ 3). Multivariate logistic regression using preoperative and intraoperative factors was completed to assess odds of recurrence.

Results: A total of 164 patients were included in the analysis, 90 TN, 34 BD, 28 BTX, and 12 BOTH. There were no other significant differences in demographics or in preoperative Eckardt score (p = 0.53). There was no difference in the proportion of patients that had postoperative manometry (p = 0.74), symptom recurrence (p = 0.59), surgical intervention (p = 0.16). BTX (14.3%) and BOTH (16.7%) patients had a higher rate of repeat endoscopic intervention than BD and TN patients (5.9% and 1.1%). In the logistic regression analysis, there was no association among the BTX, BD, or BOTH groups compared to the TN group. No odds ratios achieved statistical significance.

Conclusions: There were no increased likelihood of recurrence with botulinum injection or dilatation prior to POEM, implying that they are similarly good candidates compared to treatment-naïve patients.