INTRODUCTION: Although the 9-minute mean withdrawal time (m-WT) is often reported to be associated with the optimal adenoma detection rate (ADR), no randomized trials of screening colonoscopy have confirmed the impact of a 9-minute m-WT on adenoma miss rate (AMR) and ADR.
METHODS:A multicenter tandem trial was conducted in 11 centers. Seven hundred thirty-three asymptomatic participants were randomized to receive segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with a 9-minute withdrawal, followed by a 6-minute withdrawal (9-minute-first group, 9MF, n 5 366) or vice versa (6-minute-first group, 6MF, n 5 367). The primary outcome was the lesion-level AMR.
RESULTS:The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level (14.5% vs 36.6%, P < 0.001) and participant-level AMR (10.9% vs 25.9%, P < 0.001), advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR, 5.3% vs 46.9%, P 5 0.002), multiple adenomas miss rate (20.7% vs 56.5%, P 5 0.01), and high-risk adenomas miss rate (14.6% vs 39.5%, P 5 0.01) of 6MF without compromising detection efficiency (P 5 0.79). In addition, a lower false-negative rate for adenomas (P 5 0.002) and high-risk adenomas (P < 0.05), and a lower rate of shortening surveillance schedule (P < 0.001) were also found in 9MF, accompanying with an improved ADR in the 9-minute vs 6-minute m-WT (42.3% vs 33.5%, P 5 0.02). The independent inverse association between m-WT and AMR remained significant even after adjusting ADR, and meanwhile, 9-minute m-WT was identified as an independent protector for AMR and AAMR.
Background
Achalasia is a rare primary esophageal motility disorder disease. It is reported that the long-term effect of fully coated anti-reflux metal stent (FCARMS) implantation is satisfactory. Operated by a skilled and experienced endoscopist, the effect of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) treatment is equivalent to that of surgical myotomy. So far, there is still few evidence to prove FCARMS implantation or POEM which is better for achalasia. The choice of treatment for achalasia is still controversial. The aim of this study is to find a more suitable therapy for achalasia by comparing the efficacy of FCARMS implantation and POEM.
Methods
A propensity score (PS) matching (1:2) was used in this retrospective cohort study. Data collected from consecutive patients of Achalasia, receiving FCARMS implantation or POEM therapy at the department of gastroenterology, the Seventh Medical Center of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital from May 2007 to May 2018. According to their previous treatment, they are divided into two groups, FCARMS group and POEM group. Clinical efficacy and complications were compared between the two groups.
Results
A total of 166 cases were collected, including 113 cases of FCARMS and 53 cases of POEM. By PS matching, 150 patients were enrolled (100 cases of FCARMS and 50 cases of POEM). By comparison, the FCARMS group has shorter operation time, shorter fasting time and lower hospitalization costs than the POEM group (p < 0.05). Common complications in the FCARMS group are nausea, vomiting, and stent shift. Repetitions of gastroscopy in the FCARMS group was more often, which were 3.8 ± 2.4 (vs 2.1 ± 1.8 of POEM) (p = 0.00 < 0.05) The 6-month remission rates of the FCARMS combination POEM group were 89% and 94%, respectively (p = 0.39), and the 2-year remission rates were 61% and 90%, respectively (p = 0.00).
Conclusions
Stent placement is a cost-effective and safe treatment option for achalasia. The short-term effect (less than 6 months) of FCARMS is similar to that of POEM, the long-term effect (more than 2 years), POEM is better than FCARMS. HRMIIis most suitable for POEM treatment. It indicate that Patients can choose treatment methods according to their own conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.