Skip to content

Which is the best endoscopic treatment for achalasia in children?

Peroral endoscopic myotomy vs endoscopic balloon dilation for the treatment of achalasia in children

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN74448884
Enrollment
80
Registered
2022-02-18
Start date
2022-02-09
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-01-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Achalasia Digestive System Achalasia of cardia

Interventions

Endoscopic balloon dilation: In this study EBD will be performed by experienced (pediatric) gastroenterologists that have independently performed at least 15 procedures. The procedure will be recorde

Sponsors

Amsterdam University Medical Centers
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Eckardt score >3 2. Presence of a HRM pattern consistent with achalasia type I or II according to the Chicago classification (CC) V3.0 criteria 3. Age 7 years up to 17 years inclusive

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Achalasia type III (this extremely rare subtype in children that is accompanied by esophageal spasm and associated complaints has a worse prognosis compared to type I and II. Literature and expert-opinion based recommendations suggest to treat type III with POEM. Randomizing these patients to EBD with a high a priori risk of relapses is therefore considered unethical) 2. Previous surgical or endoscopical achalasia treatment 3. Previous surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract 4. Known coagulopathy 5. Known Liver cirrhosis and/or esophageal varices 6. Known LA grade =B esophagitis 7. Known Barrett’s esophagus 8. Known pregnancy at time of treatment 9. Stricture of the esophagus 10. Known presence of malignant or premalignant esophageal lesions 11. Hiatal hernia >1 cm based on HRM measurement 12. Extensive, tortuous dilatation (>7 cm luminal diameter, S shape) of the esophagus 13. Barium esophagram suggestive of other pathologies

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The need for any retreatment (also including retreatment that is planned before 12 months follow-up, but scheduled after 12 months follow-up), as suggested by the treating physician, using Eckhardt score, high-resolution manometry (HRM), and barium esophagram at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up or during clinically indicated emergency interim visits. The indication for re-treatment is to be confirmed by a majority of three researchers who are blinded to the treatment arm of the patient. In case a patient does not adhere to the protocol, or is lost to follow-up, available data from the last included timepoint are used for estimation of the primary endpoint in an intention to treat analysis.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. Achalasia symptoms defined by the Eckardt symptom score at 3, 6 and 12 months 2. Health-related and disease-specific quality of life (QoL) measured using the Pediatric Quality of Life inventory (PedsQL + PEDSQL-GI) and achalasia disease-specific QoL questionnaire (DSQoL) at 3, 6 and 12 months 3. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms defined by the reflux disease questionnaire (RDQ) at 3, 6 and 12 months 4. Grade of esophagitis defined by Los Angeles (LA) grade during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 12 months 5. Degree of GERD defined by 24-hour pH-impedance (pH-MII) measurement parameters at 12 months 6. Esophageal and lower esophageal sphincter function defined by high-resolution manometry (HRM) parameters at 12 months 7. Procedure-related complications (any unwanted events that arise following treatment and/or that are secondary to the treatment) measured using clinical symptoms and/or observation and appropriate additional testing at 3, 6 and 12 months 7.1. Severe: resulting in admission >24 hours or prolongation of an already planned admission of >24 hours, admission to a medium or intensive care unit, additional endoscopic procedures, blood transfusion or death 7.2. Mild: all other complications 8. Procedure times measured using a digital timer at baseline intervention(s) and during the retreatment procedure 9. Growth (absolute growth in cm and kg, as well as relative growth measured as the change in SD scores [height for age and weight for height]) measured using the digital scale supplied by the hospital at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 months 10. Cost-effectiveness evaluated using the hospital declaration system at 12 months

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026