Bansal Rajiv, Nostrant Timothy T, Scheiman James M, Koshy Sherin, Barnett Jeffrey L, Elta Grace H, Chey William D
University of Michigan Medical Center, Division of Gastroenterology, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003 Mar;36(3):209-14. doi: 10.1097/00004836-200303000-00005.
Despite a high success rate, pneumatic dilatation for achalasia is accompanied by a significant risk of esophageal perforation. Injection of botulinum toxin (botox) into the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) can lead to improvement in symptoms with reduced risk of complications. Direct comparisons of the two techniques are needed to define their role in clinical management.
We compared pneumatic dilatation to botox for patients with achalasia using a double blind, randomized study design. Patients underwent clinical, manometric, radiographic and endoscopic evaluation to confirm primary achalasia. They were randomized to receive either 80 units of botox into the LES or Witzel balloon dilatation. Patients also received sham dilatation or injection, respectively. The patients and investigators assessing symptom response were blinded to therapy. Symptoms and esophageal function were assessed at 3 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after therapy. Treatment failure was defined as the lack of decrease in symptom grade more than 1 or recurrence of symptoms. Patients with treatment failure crossed over to the alternative treatment.
Thirty four patients were studied, and 31 completed the trial. Of the 18 patients randomized to Witzel dilatation, 16 (89%) of 18 remained in clinical remission. Of the two patients with treatment failure, one responded to botox injection. Of the 16 patients randomized to botox, (38%) 6 of 16 remained in clinical remission. Four patients had initial failure, and 6 relapsed at a mean of 4 months after therapy. Of the nine patients who crossed over to dilatation, seven responded well, but two required surgical management of perforation. Although both treatments had excellent initial clinical improvement, patients randomized to Witzel dilatation had superior long-term success ( < 0.01).
Initial therapy with Witzel dilatation is associated with better long-term outcome than a single injection of botox. Because of the risk of endoscopic perforation, botox remains a viable alternative to dilatation.
尽管贲门失弛缓症的气囊扩张术成功率很高,但该手术伴有食管穿孔的重大风险。向食管下括约肌(LES)注射肉毒杆菌毒素(肉毒素)可改善症状,并降低并发症风险。需要对这两种技术进行直接比较,以确定它们在临床管理中的作用。
我们采用双盲、随机研究设计,比较了贲门失弛缓症患者的气囊扩张术和肉毒素注射治疗效果。患者接受临床、测压、放射学和内镜评估,以确诊原发性贲门失弛缓症。他们被随机分为两组,一组接受向LES注射80单位肉毒素,另一组接受维泽尔气囊扩张术。患者还分别接受了假扩张或假注射。评估症状反应的患者和研究人员对治疗方法不知情。在治疗后3周、3个月和1年评估症状和食管功能。治疗失败定义为症状分级降低不足1级或症状复发。治疗失败的患者转而接受另一种治疗。
共研究了34例患者,31例完成试验。在随机接受维泽尔扩张术的18例患者中,18例中有16例(89%)仍处于临床缓解期。在2例治疗失败的患者中,1例对肉毒素注射有反应。在随机接受肉毒素治疗的16例患者中,16例中有6例(38%)仍处于临床缓解期。4例患者最初治疗失败,6例在治疗后平均4个月复发。在转而接受扩张术的9例患者中,7例反应良好,但2例需要手术治疗穿孔。虽然两种治疗方法在初始阶段都有显著的临床改善,但随机接受维泽尔扩张术的患者长期成功率更高(P<0.01)。
与单次注射肉毒素相比,维泽尔扩张术作为初始治疗方法具有更好的长期疗效。由于存在内镜穿孔风险,肉毒素仍是一种可行的扩张术替代方法。