Clinical response to peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia at a minimum follow-up of 2 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recently developed technique for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been shown to be effective in several short-term studies. Longer term outcome data are largely non-existent. OBJECTIVE: To systematically report clinical outcome with a minimum post-POEM follow-up of 2 years. DESIGN: All patients treated consecutively by POEM for achalasia at three centres were retrospectively analysed, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The main outcome was the rate of POEM failures (Eckardt score >3) related to follow-up time. RESULTS: Of 85 patients treated, five (5.9%) cases were excluded due to protocol violation or loss to follow-up; the remaining 80 patients (mean age 44.9 years, 54% men) were followed clinically for 29 months (range 24-41). Initial clinical response was observed in 77 cases (96.3%). Clinical recurrences (later failures) were seen in a further 14 cases (17.7%), accounting for a total failure rate of 21.5%. In a multivariate analysis, age and endoscopic reflux signs were independent predictors of treatment success. Of the 17 failures, eight were among the first 10 cases treated in the participating centres. Reflux-associated sequelae included one case of a severe reflux-associated stricture requiring dilatation, and two patients with minor transient Eckardt score elevations curable by proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. Endoscopic signs of reflux oesophagitis, mostly Los Angeles grade A/B, were seen in 37.5% (37/72) at the 2-year control. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre retrospective analysis, a high initial success rate of POEM is followed by a mid-term recurrence rate of 18%. Reflux oesophagitis, albeit mild, is frequent and should probably be treated by regular low-dose PPI therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 01405417 (UKE study).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".