Pneumatic dilation for achalasia: Late results of a prospective follow up investigation

269Citations
Citations of this article
55Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and aims: In this prospective study, we determined the long term clinical course of patients with achalasia who were treated by pneumatic dilation using the Browne-McHardy dilator, and determined whether previously described predictors of outcome remain significant after prolonged follow up. Methods: Between 1981 and 1991, 54 consecutive patients were treated by pneumatic dilation and followed up at regular intervals for a median of 13.8 years. Remission was determined with the use of a structured interview and a previously described symptom score. Duration of remission was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to recurrence. Predictors of outcome were determined using the log rank test. Results: Complete follow up until 2002 was obtained in 98% of all patients. Seven patients had died and were censored. A single pneumatic dilation resulted in a five year remission rate of 40% and a 10 year remission rate of 36%. Repeated dilations only mildly improved the clinical response. Patients who were older than 40 years had a significantly better outcome than younger patients (log rank test, p = 0.0014). However, the most significant predictive factor for a favourable long term outcome was a post-dilation lower oesophageal sphincter pressure of less than 10 mm Hg (log rank test, p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Long term results of pneumatic dilation are less favourable than previously thought. Young patients and those not responding to a single pneumatic dilation should be offered alternative therapy. Patients who remain in remission for five years are likely to benefit from the longlasting treatment effect of pneumatic dilation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Eckardt, V. F., Gockel, I., & Bernhard, G. (2004). Pneumatic dilation for achalasia: Late results of a prospective follow up investigation. Gut, 53(5), 629–633. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2003.029298

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free