Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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:
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)
Identify the esophagogastric junction (EGJ).
Inject saline + methylene blue submucosally.
Create a 2 cm mucosal incision at 5-6 o'clock position, 10 cm above EGJ.
Enter the submucosal space.
Perform submucosal tunnelling down to EGJ and 2-3 cm into cardia.
Perform vessel haemostasis according to group allocation:
Perform circular myotomy (with occasional full-thickness myotomy when indicated).
Close the mucosal entry using hemostatic clips.
Record procedure time, instrument exchanges, bleeding events, and forceps usage.
Equipment
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
Study Arms Intervention Arm: Underwater Coagulation
Control Arm: Conventional Coagulation (CO₂ Setting)
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under Water Coagulation | Intervention Arm: Underwater Coagulation
|
| |
| Conventional Coagulation | Control Arm: Conventional Coagulation (CO₂ Setting)
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under Water Preventive Coagulation | Other | Leverages water as a conductive medium. Preliminary evidence suggests that:
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| To compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between: |
| 60 minutes |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| To compare composite forceps use (rescue + prophylactic) between groups. | To 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 | 60 minutes |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
120 (60 in each arm)
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajesh Goud Mr Maragoni, M.Pharm | Contact | 04023378888 | 312 | rajeshgoud761@gmail.com |
| Zaheer Nabi Dr Mohammed, MD DNB | Contact | 04023378888 | 427 | zaheernabi1978@gmail.com |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Mohan Dr Ramchandani, MD DM | Asian Institute of Gastroenterology | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Hospital | Recruiting | Hyderabad | Telangana | 500082 | India |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| To evaluate the frequency of prophylactic-only forceps use. |
To 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 |
| 60 minutes |
| To compare total number of forceps applications per procedure. | To 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 | 60 minutes |
| To determine differences in intra-procedural bleeding episodes | To 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 | 60 minutes |
| To compare procedural efficiency (procedure time, number of instrument exchanges | To 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 | 60 minutes |
| To compare hematological and inflammatory markers (Hb drop, Hct, CRP, WBC) | To 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 | 24 hours |
| To compare delayed bleeding rates | To 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 | 30 days |
| To evaluate overall complication rates (intra- and post-procedural) | To 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 | 24 hours |
| To assess patient-reported outcomes (pain, tolerability). | To 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 | 72 hours |