Lopushinsky Steven R, Urbach David R
Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
JAMA. 2006 Nov 8;296(18):2227-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.18.2227.
Pneumatic dilatation and surgical (Heller) myotomy are the 2 principal methods for treatment of achalasia. There are no population-based studies comparing outcomes of these 2 treatments in typical practice settings.
To compare the outcomes of pneumatic dilatation and surgical myotomy for achalasia.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective longitudinal study using linked administrative health data in Ontario. A total of 1461 persons aged 18 years or older received treatment for achalasia between July 1991 and December 2002, 1181 (80.8%) of whom had pneumatic dilatation and 280 (19.2%) of whom had surgical myotomy as the first procedure.
Use of subsequent interventions for achalasia (pneumatic dilatation, surgical myotomy, or esophagectomy) following the first treatment during the study period, subsequent physician visits, and use of gastrointestinal medications among persons aged 65 years or older. We adjusted for confounding variables using regression models.
The cumulative risk of any subsequent intervention for achalasia after 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively, was 36.8%, 56.2%, and 63.5% for persons treated initially with pneumatic dilatation and was 16.4%, 30.3%, and 37.5% for persons treated initially with surgical myotomy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.86-3.02; P<.001). Differences in risk were observed only when subsequent pneumatic dilatation was included as an adverse outcome; there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups with respect to the risk of subsequent surgical myotomy or esophagectomy. Compared with persons treated initially with surgical myotomy, those treated with pneumatic dilatation were not statistically different with respect to subsequent physician visits (adjusted rate ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03), or time to use of histamine-2 receptor blockers (adjusted HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.79-1.80), proton pump inhibitors (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.70-1.49), and prokinetic medications (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.60-1.41).
Subsequent intervention after the initial treatment of achalasia is common. Although the risk of subsequent interventions among persons treated with surgical myotomy in typical practice settings is higher than previously thought, the risk of subsequent intervention is greater among persons treated with pneumatic dilatation than with surgical myotomy. This difference is attributable to the use of subsequent pneumatic dilatation rather than surgical procedures.
气囊扩张术和手术(赫勒氏)肌切开术是治疗贲门失弛缓症的两种主要方法。目前尚无基于人群的研究比较这两种治疗方法在典型临床环境中的疗效。
比较气囊扩张术和手术肌切开术治疗贲门失弛缓症的疗效。
设计、设置和参与者:使用安大略省的关联行政健康数据进行回顾性纵向研究。1991年7月至2002年12月期间,共有1461名18岁及以上的人接受了贲门失弛缓症治疗,其中1181人(80.8%)首次接受气囊扩张术,280人(19.2%)首次接受手术肌切开术。
研究期间首次治疗后贲门失弛缓症后续干预措施(气囊扩张术、手术肌切开术或食管切除术)的使用情况、后续医生就诊情况以及65岁及以上人群胃肠道药物的使用情况。我们使用回归模型对混杂变量进行了调整。
首次接受气囊扩张术治疗的患者,1年、5年和10年后贲门失弛缓症任何后续干预措施的累积风险分别为36.8%、56.2%和63.5%;首次接受手术肌切开术治疗的患者,相应累积风险分别为16.4%、30.3%和37.5%(调整后风险比[HR]为2.37;95%置信区间[CI]为1.86 - 3.02;P <.001)。仅将后续气囊扩张术作为不良结局纳入时,两组风险存在差异;两组在后续手术肌切开术或食管切除术风险方面无统计学差异。与首次接受手术肌切开术治疗的患者相比,接受气囊扩张术治疗的患者在后续医生就诊情况(调整后率比为1.01;95% CI为1.00 - 1.03)、使用组胺2受体阻滞剂的时间(调整后HR为1.19;95% CI为0.79 - 1.80)、质子泵抑制剂(HR为1.02;95% CI为0.70 - 1.49)以及促动力药物(HR为0.92;95% CI为0.60 - 1.41)方面无统计学差异。
贲门失弛缓症初始治疗后的后续干预很常见。虽然在典型临床环境中接受手术肌切开术治疗的患者后续干预风险高于此前认为的水平,但接受气囊扩张术治疗的患者后续干预风险大于接受手术肌切开术治疗的患者。这种差异归因于后续气囊扩张术的使用而非手术操作。