Geeratragool T.Boonumnuay P.Maneerattanaporn M.Sunsaneevithayakul S.Jaruchaiyong A.Penrasamee N.Laothanasin P.Chuenprapai P.Phalanusitthepha C.Leelakusolvong S.Mahidol University2024-12-222024-12-222024-01-01Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (2024)00165107https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/102472Background and Aims: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) shows higher efficacy than pneumatic balloon dilation (PBD) for type I and II achalasia over 2 years. However, long-term durability beyond 5 years remains under-investigated. This study assessed the long-term efficacy of PBD versus POEM. Methods: This retrospective comparative study examined treatment-naive achalasia patients who underwent either PBD or POEM. Cohort balance was achieved through propensity score (PS) matching based on age, sex, Eckardt score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The primary outcome was the time to a second intervention. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure, Eckardt score, number of intervention sessions, weight gain, and adverse events. Results: Of the 127 patients, 67 underwent PBD and 60 underwent POEM, with an average follow-up of 7 years (interquartile range, 5-10). After PS matching, 100 patients with 1:1 matching were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, including clinical, endoscopic, and manometric attributes, were comparable between groups. The POEM group had a significantly longer time to a second intervention than the PBD group (hazard ratio,.139; 95% confidence interval,.048-.405) and underwent less endoscopic sessions (P <.001 by linear marginal model analysis) within the first 2 years. Beyond 2 years, subsequent interventions were comparable between groups. There were no differences in the Eckardt score or weight gain. Hospital stays were shorter in the PBD group (2 vs 4 days, P <.001). POEM patients had more adverse events, including perforation. Conclusions: POEM demonstrated greater long-term durability than PBD, but PBD was associated with shorter hospital stays and fewer adverse events.MedicineArticleSCOPUS10.1016/j.gie.2024.10.0462-s2.0-852121852701097677939477022