POEM for achalasia: endoscopic myotomy enters its golden age, and we are taking NOTES

Clinical and financial outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy compared to laparoscopic heller myotomy for treatment of achalasia

BACKGROUND

Previous studies analyzing short-term outcomes for per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) have shown excellent clinical response rates and shorter operative times compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Despite this, many payors have been slow to recognize POEM as a valid treatment option. Furthermore, comparative studies analyzing long-term outcomes are limited. This study compares perioperative and long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and reimbursement for POEM and LHM at a single institution.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent POEM or LHM between 2014 and 2021 and had complete preoperative data with at least one complete follow up, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, success rate, operative time, myotomy length, length of stay, pre- and postoperative symptom scores, anti-reflux medication use, cost and reimbursement were compared.

RESULTS

58 patients met inclusion with 25 undergoing LHM and 33 undergoing POEM. There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics. Treatment success (Eckardt ≤ 3) for POEM and LHM was achieved by 88% and 76% of patients, respectively (p = 0.302). POEM patients had a shorter median operative time (106 min. vs. 145 min., p = 0.003) and longer median myotomy length (11 cm vs. 8 cm, p < 0.001). All LHM patients had a length of stay (LOS) ≥ 1 day vs. 51.5% for POEM patients (p < 0.001). Both groups showed improvements in dysphagia, heartburn, regurgitation, Eckardt score, GERD HRQL, RSI, and anti-reflux medication use. The improvement in dysphagia score was greater in patients undergoing POEM (2.30 vs 1.12, p = 0.003). Median hospital reimbursement was dramatically less for POEM ($3,658 vs. $14,152, p = 0.002), despite median hospital costs being significantly lower compared to LHM ($2,420 vs. $3,132, p = 0.029).

RESULTS

POEM is associated with a shorter operative time and LOS, longer myotomy length, and greater resolution of dysphagia compared to LHM. POEM costs are significantly less than LHM but is poorly reimbursed.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is more cost-effective than laparoscopic Heller myotomy in the short term for achalasia: economic evaluation from a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  We aimed to perform an economic evaluation of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of achalasia. Materials and methods  An economic cost-utility analysis was carried out over a time horizon of 1 year. Patients with achalasia who were admitted to the gastroenterology outpatient clinic of a public tertiary referral hospital were assigned to undergo POEM or LHM. The monetary amounts ​​were extracted from the intranet of the institution using microcosting. All costs associated with the procedure, hospitalization, clinical follow-up and resolution of therapeutic complications were included. The utility data were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which were estimated from the scores of a quality-of-life questionnaire. Results  Forty patients (20 POEM patients and 20 LHM patients) were included. The final cost associated with POEM and LHM was US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53 and US$ 1,696.44 ± 412.21, respectively ( P  < 0.001). However, the QALYs in the POEM group (0.434 ± 0.215 vs 0.332 ± 0.222, P  = 0.397) were slightly higher than those in the LHM group. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) suggested that an additional US$ 9,046.41/QALY gained was required when using POEM. Conclusion  For the treatment of achalasia in the public health system, POEM appears to be more cost-effective than LHM in the short term.