Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
JAMA. 2015 May 12;313(18):1841-52. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.2996.
Achalasia significantly affects patients' quality of life and can be difficult to diagnose and treat.
To review the diagnosis and management of achalasia, with a focus on phenotypic classification pertinent to therapeutic outcomes.
Literature review and MEDLINE search of articles from January 2004 to February 2015. A total of 93 articles were included in the final literature review addressing facets of achalasia epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials focusing on endoscopic or surgical therapy for achalasia were included (734 total patients).
A diagnosis of achalasia should be considered when patients present with dysphagia, chest pain, and refractory reflux symptoms after an endoscopy does not reveal a mechanical obstruction or an inflammatory cause of esophageal symptoms. Manometry should be performed if achalasia is suspected. Randomized controlled trials support treatments focused on disrupting the lower esophageal sphincter with pneumatic dilation (70%-90% effective) or laparoscopic myotomy (88%-95% effective). Patients with achalasia have a variable prognosis after endoscopic or surgical myotomy based on subtypes, with type II (absent peristalsis with abnormal pan-esophageal high-pressure patterns) having a very favorable outcome (96%) and type I (absent peristalsis without abnormal pressure) having an intermediate prognosis (81%) that is inversely associated with the degree of esophageal dilatation. In contrast, type III (absent peristalsis with distal esophageal spastic contractions) is a spastic variant with less favorable outcomes (66%) after treatment of the lower esophageal sphincter.
Achalasia should be considered when dysphagia is present and not explained by an obstruction or inflammatory process. Responses to treatment vary based on which achalasia subtype is present.
贲门失弛缓症显著影响患者的生活质量,且其诊断和治疗可能具有挑战性。
综述贲门失弛缓症的诊断和治疗,重点关注与治疗结果相关的表型分类。
对 2004 年 1 月至 2015 年 2 月的文献进行综述和 MEDLINE 检索,共纳入 93 篇最终文献,内容涉及贲门失弛缓症的流行病学、病理生理学、诊断、治疗和结局等方面。共纳入 9 项针对贲门失弛缓症内镜或手术治疗的随机对照试验(共 734 例患者)。
如果内镜检查未发现机械性梗阻或食管症状的炎症原因,且患者出现吞咽困难、胸痛和难治性反流症状,应考虑贲门失弛缓症的诊断。如果怀疑贲门失弛缓症,应进行测压检查。随机对照试验支持针对食管下括约肌的治疗方法,包括气囊扩张(70%-90%有效)或腹腔镜肌切开术(88%-95%有效)。基于亚型,内镜或手术肌切开术后贲门失弛缓症患者的预后存在差异,Ⅱ型(无蠕动,伴全食管高压模式异常)具有非常好的结局(96%),Ⅰ型(无蠕动,压力无异常)具有中等预后(81%),与食管扩张程度呈反比,而Ⅲ型(无蠕动,伴食管下段痉挛性收缩)是一种痉挛性变异,治疗食管下括约肌后结局较差(66%)。
当存在无法用梗阻或炎症过程解释的吞咽困难时,应考虑贲门失弛缓症。治疗反应取决于存在的贲门失弛缓症亚型。