Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07575295

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

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

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Conditions

Vessel Puncture Site Reaction

Age range

18 year–65 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

About this study

Primary Objective

To compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between:

  • Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and 2. Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation. Secondary Objectives
  • To compare composite forceps use (rescue + prophylactic) between groups.
  • To evaluate the frequency of prophylactic-only forceps use.
  • To compare total number of forceps applications per procedure.
  • To determine differences in intra-procedural bleeding episodes.
  • To compare procedural efficiency (procedure time, number of instrument exchanges).
  • To compare hematological and inflammatory markers (Hb drop, Hct, CRP, WBC).
  • To compare delayed bleeding rates within 30 days.
  • To evaluate overall complication rates (intra- and post-procedural).
  • 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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age ≥ 18 years
  • Diagnosis of achalasia or esophageal motility disorder planned for POEM
  • Ability to provide informed consent

Exclusion criteria

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

Treatment and study plan

Under Water Preventive Coagulation

Other

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.

Primary outcomes

  1. To compare the proportion of POEM patients requiring rescue haemostasis with coagulation forceps (for active bleeding) between:

    Time frame: 60 minutes

    • Underwater preventive vessel coagulation, and
    • Conventional vessel coagulation under CO₂ insufflation.

Secondary outcomes

  1. To compare composite forceps use (rescue + prophylactic) between groups.

    Time frame: 60 minutes

    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

  2. To evaluate the frequency of prophylactic-only forceps use.

    Time frame: 60 minutes

    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

  3. To compare total number of forceps applications per procedure.

    Time frame: 60 minutes

    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

  4. To determine differences in intra-procedural bleeding episodes

    Time frame: 60 minutes

    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

  5. To compare procedural efficiency (procedure time, number of instrument exchanges

    Time frame: 60 minutes

    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

  6. To compare hematological and inflammatory markers (Hb drop, Hct, CRP, WBC)

    Time frame: 24 hours

    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

  7. To compare delayed bleeding rates

    Time frame: 30 days

    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

  8. To evaluate overall complication rates (intra- and post-procedural)

    Time frame: 24 hours

    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

  9. To assess patient-reported outcomes (pain, tolerability).

    Time frame: 72 hours

    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

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Rajesh Goud Mr Maragoni, M.Pharm

CONTACT

[email protected]

04023378888 ext. 312

Zaheer Nabi Dr Mohammed, MD DNB

CONTACT

[email protected]

04023378888 ext. 427

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, India

Other

Registry information

Acronym: POEM

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2027
First posted
May 8, 2026
Registry last updated
May 12, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.