Healthcare Utilization, Costs and Other Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) Versus Heller Myotomy in the Inpatient Management of Achalasia in The United States: A 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Study

Abstract

Introduction: Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) is the recommended first-line treatment for all achalasia subtypes due to its minimally invasive nature. We aim to evaluate the trends of utilization, costs, and outcomes (mortality and complications) of POEM versus Heller Myotomy (HM) in U.S. hospitals. Methods: This is a retrospective study of individuals admitted with a primary diagnosis of achalasia. Data was obtained from Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases from the years 2016 to 2020 using ICD-10 codes. We assessed the therapeutic procedures employed, the trends and outcomes associated with POEM versus HM in terms of hospital utilization, mortality, morbidity, and the baseline characteristics of our study population. Results: A total of 26 880 adult individuals were diagnosed with achalasia. Of these, 11% underwent POEM, while 59% underwent HM. POEM rates increased from 6% to 10% of achalasia admissions, while HM decreased from 49% to 41% during the study period. No significant differences in total hospital charges or length of stay were observed between the 2 procedures. Regarding procedural complications, HM was associated with significantly reduced odds of pneumonia (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.41), pneumoperitoneum (aOR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03-0.36), and pneumomediastinum (aOR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06-0.68), with no difference in the odds of esophageal perforation (aOR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.27-6.48) and sepsis (aOR = 2.04, 95% CI: 0.22-18.40). Conclusion: While HM rates are currently declining in the U.S., POEM usage appears to be increasing. Despite being a less invasive measure than HM, POEM remains underutilized in the U.S.