Skip to content

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Underwater Versus Conventional Preventive Coagulation for Intraprocedural Vessel Management During Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Underwater Versus Conventional Preventive Coagulation for Intraprocedural Vessel Management During Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07575295
Acronym
POEM
Enrollment
120
Registered
2026-05-08
Start date
2026-02-01
Completion date
2027-12-30
Last updated
2026-05-12

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

Conditions

Vessel Puncture Site Reaction

Brief summary

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) has become an established, minimally invasive therapy for achalasia and esophageal motility disorders. Submucosal tunnelling is a critical phase of POEM and requires meticulous haemostasis to avoid bleeding, loss of orientation, reduced visibility, and prolonged procedural time. The current standard method of vessel coagulation during POEM involves conventional coagulation under CO₂ insufflation using the hybrid knife (HK). However, this approach can require additional hemostatic devices-most commonly coagulation forceps-particularly when dealing with large-calibre vessels or resistant bleeding. A novel technique-underwater preventive coagulation-leverages water as a conductive medium. Preliminary evidence suggests that: * electrosurgical current in water is focalized at the interface of the vessel, * allowing a soft sealing of the vessel wall, * reducing the risk of vessel rupture or unintended deep thermal injury, * and potentially eliminating the need to convert to coagulation forceps. Pilot data from our center demonstrate that underwater prophylactic sealing of large vessels during POEM is feasible, safe, and associated with markedly reduced need for rescue coagulation forceps. The technique is already used in practice but lacks systematic evidence from prospective randomized trials. This study is designed to provide high-quality evidence on whether underwater vessel coagulation improves haemostatic efficiency, reduces intra-procedural bleeding, and minimizes device changes during POEM. All POEM procedures will be performed under general anesthesia in the supine position using Fujifilm high-definition gastroscopes with a 2.8 mm channel and transparent distal cap. Steps (Both Arms) 1. Identify the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). 2. Inject saline + methylene blue submucosally. 3. Create a 2 cm mucosal incision at 5-6 o'clock position, 10 cm above EGJ. 4. Enter the submucosal space. 5. Perform submucosal tunnelling down to EGJ and 2-3 cm into cardia. 6. Perform vessel haemostasis according to group allocation: * Underwater coagulation (intervention) * CO₂-based conventional coagulation (control) 7. Perform circular myotomy (with occasional full-thickness myotomy when indicated). 8. Close the mucosal entry using hemostatic clips. 9. Record procedure time, instrument exchanges, bleeding events, and forceps usage. Equipment * Hybrid Knife (Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH) * VIO 3 generator + ERBEJet 2 water-jet system * Methylene-blue tinted saline * Electrosurgical settings: ENDO CUT Q 2-3-3 for mucosal incision and myotomy

Detailed description

Primary Objective To compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1\. Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and 2. Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation. Secondary Objectives 1. To compare composite forceps use (rescue + prophylactic) between groups. 2. To evaluate the frequency of prophylactic-only forceps use. 3. To compare total number of forceps applications per procedure. 4. To determine differences in intra-procedural bleeding episodes. 5. To compare procedural efficiency (procedure time, number of instrument exchanges). 6. To compare hematological and inflammatory markers (Hb drop, Hct, CRP, WBC). 7. To compare delayed bleeding rates within 30 days. 8. To evaluate overall complication rates (intra- and post-procedural). 9. To assess patient-reported outcomes (pain, tolerability). A prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled clinical trial. Study Arms Intervention Arm: Underwater Coagulation * Vessel coagulation performed entirely underwater using the Hybrid Knife. * SWIFT COAG: E3 (89 W) for POEM. * Physiological saline instilled to completely displace air around the target vessel. Control Arm: Conventional Coagulation (CO₂ Setting) * Standard vessel isolation and coagulation under CO₂ insufflation. * SWIFT COAG: E3 (89 W) for POEM.

Interventions

OTHERUnder Water Preventive Coagulation

Leverages water as a conductive medium. Preliminary evidence suggests that: 1. electrosurgical current in water is focalized at the interface of the vessel, 2. allowing a soft sealing of the vessel wall, 3. reducing the risk of vessel rupture or unintended deep thermal injury, 4. and potentially eliminating the need to convert to coagulation forceps.

Sponsors

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, India
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Age ≥ 18 years 2. Diagnosis of achalasia or esophageal motility disorder planned for POEM 3. Ability to provide informed consent

Exclusion criteria

1. Anticoagulant or antithrombotic therapy not safely stoppable 2. Known coagulopathy or platelet disorder 3. Esophageal/gastric varices 4. Previous POEM or Heller's myotomy 5. Prior treatment for same condition 6. Inability or refusal to consent 7. Visualized vessels smaller than the HK inner diameter (1.2 mm)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
To compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between:60 minutes1. Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and 2. Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
To compare composite forceps use (rescue + prophylactic) between groups.60 minutesTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To evaluate the frequency of prophylactic-only forceps use.60 minutesTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To compare total number of forceps applications per procedure.60 minutesTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To determine differences in intra-procedural bleeding episodes60 minutesTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To compare procedural efficiency (procedure time, number of instrument exchanges60 minutesTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To compare hematological and inflammatory markers (Hb drop, Hct, CRP, WBC)24 hoursTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To compare delayed bleeding rates30 daysTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between:1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To evaluate overall complication rates (intra- and post-procedural)24 hoursTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation
To assess patient-reported outcomes (pain, tolerability).72 hoursTo compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: 1.Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation

Countries

India

Contacts

CONTACTRajesh Goud Mr Maragoni, M.Pharm
rajeshgoud761@gmail.com04023378888
CONTACTZaheer Nabi Dr Mohammed, MD DNB
zaheernabi1978@gmail.com04023378888
STUDY_DIRECTORMohan Dr Ramchandani, MD DM

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 13, 2026