Efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs other achalasia treatments in improving esophageal function

Table 1 Patient characteristics n (%)

	PD (n = 22)		LHM (n =142)		POEM (n =36)
Factor	n	Summary	n	Summary	n	Summary	P value
Age at diagnosis (yr)	22	47.5 ± 17.0	142	45.8 ± 15.6	36	52.6 ± 17.2	0.078a
Age at current treatment (yr)	22	50.3 ± 17.9	142	46.5 ± 15.73	36	55.4 ± 16.82	0.013a
Gender	22		142		36		0.19c
Female		11 (50.0)		71 (50.0)		12 (33.3)
Male		11 (50.0)		71 (50.0)		24 (66.7)
Ethnicity	22		141		36		0.85d
White		17 (77.3)		118 (83.7)		31 (86.1)
Black		4 (18.2)		19 (13.5)		4 (11.1)
Other		1 (4.5)		4 (2.8)		1 (2.8)
BMI (kg/m2)	22	27.1 ± 6.9	142	26.0 ± 5.13	36	29.1 ± 5.92	0.012a
Achalasia sub-type	14		120		34		0.023d
Subtype 1		5 (35.7)		30 (25.0)		13 (38.2)
Subtype 2		6 (42.9)		82 (68.3)		18 (52.9)
Subtype 3		2 (14.3)		1 (0.83)		3 (8.8)
Achalasia variant		1 (7.1)		7 (5.8)		0 (0.0)
Prior treatments
Received any prior treatment	22	15 (68.2)	140	62 (44.3)3	36	26 (72.2)2	0.003c
Months from last to current treatment	14	17.7 [2.3, 87.5]	54	6.3 [3.2,28.5]	25	14.7 [6.4,20.2]	0.29b
Botulinium toxin injection	22	1 (4.5)	140	16 (11.4)	36	8 (22.2)	0.11c
PD	22	9 (40.9)2	140	19 (13.6)13	36	11 (30.6)2	0.002c
LHM	22	7 (31.8)2	140	1 (0.71)13	36	10 (27.8)2	< 0.001c
Botulinum toxin injection and regular endoscopic balloon dilation	22	2 (9.1)	140	1 (0.71)	36	0 (0.0)	0.050d
Regular endoscopic balloon dilation	22	3 (13.6)	140	34 (24.3)3	36	2 (5.6)2	0.031c

¹Significantly different from PD;

²Significantly different from LHM;

³Significantly different from POEM. Values presented as Mean ± SD, Median [P25, P75] or N (column %). P-value: a = ANOVA, b = Kruskal-Wallis test, c = Pearson's χ² test, d = Fisher's Exact test. PD: Pneumatic dilation; LHM: Laparoscopic Heller myotomy; POEM: Peroral endoscopic myotomy.