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

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18-65
SponsorAsian Institute of Gastroenterology, India

About this trial

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

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Age ≥ 18 years

Diagnosis of achalasia or esophageal motility disorder planned for POEM

Ability to provide informed consent

Disqualifiers

Anticoagulant or antithrombotic therapy not safely stoppable

Known coagulopathy or platelet disorder

Esophageal/gastric varices

Previous POEM or Heller's myotomy

Trial population

120 (60 in each arm)

Trial design

Design model

Case-control

Time perspective

Prospective

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Under Water Preventive Coagulation

    Other intervention

    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.

Treatment groups

120 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Under Water Coagulation1 intervention
Group B: Conventional Coagulation0 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

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.

Time frame
60 minutes

Secondary outcomes

1

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

Time frame
60 minutes
2

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

Time frame
60 minutes
3

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

Time frame
60 minutes
4

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

Time frame
60 minutes

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.