Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in treatment-naive patients with achalasia: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

2-year follow-up data from our randomised controlled trial showed that peroral endoscopic myotomy is associated with a significantly higher efficacy than pneumatic dilation as initial treatment of therapy-naive patients with achalasia. Here we report therapeutic success rates in patients treated with peroral endoscopic myotomy compared with pneumatic dilation at the 5-year follow-up. We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Hong Kong, and the USA. Adults aged 18–80 years with newly diagnosed symptomatic achalasia (based on an Eckardt score >3) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to peroral endoscopic myotomy or pneumatic dilation using web-based randomisation with a random block size of 8 and stratification according to site. Randomisation concealment for treatment type was double blind until official study enrolment. Treatment was unmasked because of the different technical approach of each procedure. Patients in the pneumatic dilation group were dilated with a single series of 30–35 mm balloons. The need for subsequent dilations in the pneumatic dilation group, and the need for dilation after initial treatment in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group, was considered treatment failure. The primary outcome was therapeutic success (Eckardt score ≤3 in the absence of severe treatment-related complications and no need for retreatment). Analysis of the primary outcome was by modified intention to treat, including all patients randomly assigned to a group, excluding those patients who did not receive treatment or were lost to follow-up. Safety was assessed in all included patients. This study is registered at the Dutch Trial Registry, NTR3593, and is completed. Between Sept 21, 2012, and July 20, 2015, 182 patients were assessed for eligibility, 133 of whom were included in the study and randomly assigned to peroral endoscopic myotomy (n=67) or pneumatic dilation (n=66). 5-year follow-up data were available for 62 patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group and 63 patients in the pneumatic dilation group. 50 (81%) patients in the peroral endoscopic myotomy group had treatment success at 5 years, compared with 25 (40%) in the pneumatic dilation group, an adjusted absolute difference of 41% (95% CI 25–57; p