New treatment method for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): C-BLART (clip band ligation anti-reflux therapy)-a short-term study

Efficacy of different endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are no direct comparisons across different endoscopic therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to evaluate the relative effects of different endoscopic therapies in GERD.

METHODS

Five databases were searched until August 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL), Stretta, endoscopic fundoplication (transoral incisionless fundoplication [TIF], endoscopic full-thickness plication [EFTP], and EndoCinch plication procedure [EndoCinch, CR BARD, Billerica, Mass., USA]), or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)/sham procedure for GERD. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 trials comprising 1181 patients were included. EBL (mean difference [MD], -7.75; 95% credible interval [CrI], -13.90 to -1.44), Stretta (MD, -9.86; 95% CrI, -19.05 to -0.58), and TIF (MD, -12.58; 95% CrI, -20.23 to -4.91) all significantly improved patients' health-related quality of life score with equivalent efficacy compared with PPIs. TIF and EBL achieved equivalent efficacy in reducing PPIs utility (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.40-1.05) and both were significantly superior to other endoscopic interventions (Stretta, EFTP, and EndoCinch). Besides, EBL and TIF also could significantly decrease the esophagitis incidence compared with PPIs (EBL [RR, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.22-0.48] and TIF [RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.15-0.88]). In terms of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, only TIF could significantly increase the LES pressure (MD, 6.53; 95% CrI, 3.65-9.40) to PPIs. In contrast, TIF was inferior to PPIs in decreasing esophageal acid exposure (MD, 2.57; 95% CrI, 0.77-4.36).

CONCLUSION

Combining the evidence, EBL and TIF may have comparable efficacy and both might be superior to Stretta, EFTP, or EndoCinch in GERD treatment.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF) for the treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment is increasingly used for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (rGERD). Unlike the mechanism of conventional surgical fundoplication, gastroesophageal junction ligation, anti-reflux mucosal intervention, and radiofrequency ablation have extremely similar anti-reflux mechanisms; hence, we collectively refer to them as endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ECSF in treating rGERD.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Medline, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang, to ensure a systematic approach for data collection between January 2011 and July 2023. Forest plots were used to summarize and combine the GERD-health-related quality of life (HRQL), gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire score, and DeMeester scores, acid exposure time, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, esophagitis, proton pump inhibitors use, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

This study comprised 37 studies, including 1732 patients. After ECSF, significant improvement in gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life score (mean difference [MD] = 18.27 95% CI: 14.81-21.74), gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire score (MD = 4.85 95% CI: 3.96-5.75), DeMeester score (MD = 42.34, 95% CI: 31.37-53.30), acid exposure time (MD = 7.98, 95% CI: 6.03-9.92), and lower esophageal sphincter pressure was observed (MD = -5.01, 95% CI: -8.39 to 1.62). The incidence of serious adverse effects after ECSF was 1.1% (95% CI: 0.9%-1.2%), and postoperatively, 67.4% (95% CI: 66.4%-68.2%) of patients could discontinue proton pump inhibitor-like drugs, and the treatment outcome was observed to be satisfactory in over 80% of the patients. Subgroup analyses of the various procedures showed that all 3 types improved several objective or subjective patient indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, we conclude that rGERD can be safely and effectively treated with ECSF as an endoscopic procedure.

Objective Outcomes of an Extended Anti-reflux Mucosectomy in the Treatment of PPI-Dependent Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (with Video)

BACKGROUND

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) is a choice for proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-dependent patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We present an extended anti-reflux mucosectomy, named ligation-assisted anti-reflux mucosectomy (L-ARMS). The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the procedure and short-term outcomes on PPI use and symptom resolution.

METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained for retrospective review of a prospectively collected database including patients who underwent L-ARMS. L-ARMS includes mucosa ligation and endoscopic mucosectomy without submucosal injection around the squamocolumnar junction. The GERD symptoms, endoscopy, 24-h pH monitoring results, and manometry were collected by chart review. Voluntary validated surveys assessed symptomatic improvement over time.

RESULTS

There were 69 patients available for review. The procedure was technically completed in all cases with no severe complications, and the average operation time was 33 min. At 6 months after L-ARMS, treatment with PPIs had been halted in 55.1% of the patients, 30.4% of the enrolled patients used PPIs occasionally, and the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, DeMeester scores, and GERD-health-related quality of life questionnaire (GERD-HRQL) scores showed a significant improvement compared with the baseline measurements (P < 0.001). Forty-five patients complained of mild dysphagia and were relieved in 4 weeks with no specific treatment. Compared to patients without dysphagia, patients complained of dysphagia after surgery had better clinical benefits indicated by GERD-HRQL and DeMeester score.

CONCLUSIONS

As a modified ARMS, L-ARMS is an effective procedure for controlling GERD symptoms, esophageal acid exposure, and LES pressure, which can be safely performed endoscopically in a time-saving and simple manner.

Antireflux mucosal intervention (ARMI) procedures for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatments are increasingly being offered for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Three procedures have similar concepts and techniques: antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS), antireflux mucosal ablation (ARMA), and antireflux band ligation (ARBL); we have collectively termed them antireflux mucosal intervention (ARMI). Here, we systematically reviewed the clinical outcomes and technical aspects.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2021. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate. The secondary outcomes were acid exposure time, DeMeester score, need for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), endoscopic findings, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included. The pooled clinical success rate was 73.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 69%-78%) overall, 68.6% (95% CI = 62.2%-74.4%) with ARMS, 86.7% (95% CI = 78.7%-91.9%) with ARMA, and 76.5% (95% CI = 65%-85.1%) with ARBL. ARMI resulted in significantly improved acid exposure time, DeMeester score, and degree of hiatal hernia. Furthermore, 10% of patients had dysphagia requiring endoscopic dilatation after ARMS or ARMA, and ARMS was associated with a 2.2% perforation rate. By contrast, no bleeding, perforation, or severe dysphagia was noted with ARBL. Severe hiatal hernia (Hill grade III) may predict treatment failure with ARMA.

CONCLUSIONS

The three ARMI procedures were efficacious and safe for PPI-refractory GERD. ARMA and ARBL may be preferred over ARMS because of fewer adverse events and similar efficacy. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal technique and patient selection.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease: When East meets West

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common worldwide and poses a huge challenge to health. Consensuses and guidelines on the diagnosis and management of GERD in China and the USA have recently been updated. The divergence between these guidelines indicates the differences in the conception of this disease by experts in different countries, and is influenced by available medications and interventional procedures. Prompt endoscopy has been advocated in China due to a high prevalence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, while endoscopy has been reserved for those who are at a risk of malignancy or who are reisitant to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the USA. A potassium channel acid-blocker is widely used in Asian countries and has proven efficacy. Moreover, it has been recommended, together with PPIs, as a primary therapy for GERD in China; while PPI alone is recommended as a first-line treatment in the USA. Although more prokinetics are available in China than in the USA and can alleviate GERD symptoms when combined with PPI, the choice of prokinetics is limited in the USA, leading to completely opposite attitudes to prokinetics in the two countries. Novel anti-reflux procedures have been introduced in both countries. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is recommended as an endoscopic anti-reflux procedure, and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is recognized as equivocal to conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in the USA. However, radiofrequency ablation is more popular in China, and clinical trials on TIF and MSA are not complete, which results in diverse opinions about suitable anti-reflux procedures in China. A comparison of the guidelines may therefore shed light on the multiple dimensions of GERD and thus deepen our understanding of the disease.

Endoscopic anti-reflux therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease has an increasing incidence and prevalence worldwide. A significant proportion of patients have a suboptimal response to proton pump inhibitors or are unwilling to take lifelong medication due to concerns about long-term adverse effects. Endoscopic anti-reflux therapies offer a minimally invasive option for patients unwilling to undergo surgical treatment or take lifelong medication. The best candidates are those with a good response to proton pump inhibitors and without a significant sliding hiatal hernia. Transoral incisionless fundoplication and nonablative radiofrequency are the techniques with the largest body of evidence and that have been tested in several randomized clinical trials. Band-assisted ligation techniques, anti-reflux mucosectomy, anti-reflux mucosal ablation, and new plication devices have yielded promising results in recent noncontrolled studies. Nonetheless, the role of endoscopic procedures remains controversial due to limited long-term and comparative data, and no consensus exists in current clinical guidelines. This review provides an updated summary focused on the patient selection, technical details, clinical success, and safety of current and future endoscopic anti-reflux techniques.

Endoscopic approaches to gastroesophageal reflux disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common chronic conditions affecting adults. A substantial proportion of patients continue to have symptoms despite medical therapy, and there has been increased demand for minimally invasive GERD therapy. We will examine currently available techniques and outcomes data on endoscopic approaches to the treatment of GERD.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 2 years, research has given rise to more robust understanding of not only the pathophysiology of GERD but also how to better manage the various phenotypes. We are learning the ideal patient to benefit from endoscopic GERD therapy. In this review, we describe the four major endoluminal techniques for treating GERD and summarize current data.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic therapies are well positioned to fill the 'therapy gap' between medical therapy and more invasive surgical procedures.