Peroral endoscopic myotomy: 10-year outcomes from a large, single-center U.S. series with high follow-up completion and comprehensive analysis of long-term efficacy, safety, objective GERD, and endoscopic functional luminal assessment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is becoming the treatment of choice for achalasia. Data beyond 3 years are emerging but are limited. We herein report our 10-year experience, focusing on long-term efficacy and safety including the prevalence, management, and sequelae of postoperative reflux. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study. RESULTS: Six hundred ten consecutive patients received POEM from October 2009 to October 2019, 160 for type 1 achalasia (26.2%), 307 for type II (50.3%), 93 for type III (15.6%), 25 for untyped achalasia (4.1%), and 23 for nonachalasia disorders (3.8%). Two hundred ninety-two patients (47.9%) had prior treatment(s). There was no aborted POEM. Median operation time was 54 minutes. Accidental mucosotomies occurred in 64 patients (10.5%) and clinically significant adverse events in 21 patients (3.4%). No adverse events led to death, surgery, interventional radiology interventions/drains, or altered functional status. At a median follow-up of 30 months, 29 failures occurred, defined as postoperative Eckardt score >3 or need for additional treatment. The Kaplan-Meier clinical success estimates at years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were 98%, 96%, 96%, 94%, 92%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. These are highly accurate estimates because only 13 patients (2%) were missing follow-up assessments. One hundred twenty-five patients (20.5%) had reflux symptoms more than once per week. At a median of 4 months, the pH study was completed in 406 patients (66.6%) and was positive in 232 (57.1%), and endoscopy was completed in 438 patients (71.8%) and showed reflux esophagitis in 218 (49.8%), mostly mild. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is exceptionally safe and highly effective on long-term follow-up, with >90% clinical success at ≥5 years.

It's Not Just a Needlestick: Exploring Phlebotomists' Knowledge, Training, and Use of Comfort Measures in Pediatric Care to Improve the Patient Experience.

BACKGROUND: Blood draws are a routine element of the pediatric patient experience. They are also associated with the greatest fear and pain for a child. Because of the limited literature regarding phlebotomists' knowledge, experience, training, or stress related to their use of comfort techniques during pediatric blood draws, this study explored current practices and training methods. Phlebotomist training tends to focus on clinical technique rather than pediatric or patient comfort support. The study includes aims to develop a measurement for phlebotomists' use of comfort techniques for pediatric blood draws. METHOD: Focus groups of parent advocates (n = 24) and pediatric phlebotomists (n = 11) reviewed the survey questionnaire, and it was revised before being e-mailed to hospital system phlebotomists (n = 128). RESULTS: Almost half of the sample group lacked training in child development. The most frequently used comfort measures were words of explanation and reassurance, positioning of the child, and distraction. Requesting child life specialist support and using pain management devices or topical anesthetics were used less often. Primary challenges to performing pediatric blood draws were anxious patients and parents. CONCLUSION: Phlebotomists' use of available comfort measures occurs infrequently. Including child development and comfort techniques in training programs is essential to providing pediatric patients with a more satisfactory experience.