Endoscopic cardial constriction with band ligation in the treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a preliminary feasibility study

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.

Role of endoscopy in gastroesophageal reflux disease

In general, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is diagnosed clinically based on typical symptoms and/or response to proton pump inhibitor treatment. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is reserved for patients presenting with alarm symptoms, such as dysphagia, odynophagia, significant weight loss, gastrointestinal bleeding, or anorexia; those who meet the criteria for Barrett's esophagus screening; those who report a lack or partial response to proton pump inhibitor treatment; and those with prior endoscopic or surgical anti-reflux interventions. Newer endoscopic techniques are primarily used to increase diagnostic yield and provide an alternative to medical or surgical treatment for GERD. The available endoscopic modalities for the diagnosis of GERD include conventional endoscopy with white-light imaging, high-resolution and high-magnification endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, image-enhanced endoscopy (narrow-band imaging, I- SCAN, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging, and linked color imaging), and confocal laser endomicroscopy. Endoscopic techniques for treating GERD include esophageal radiofrequency energy delivery/Stretta procedure, transoral incisionless fundoplication, and endoscopic full-thickness plication. Other novel techniques include anti-reflux mucosectomy, peroral endoscopic cardiac constriction, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and endoscopic band ligation. Currently, many of the new endoscopic techniques are not widely available, and their use is limited to centers of excellence.

Positive and negative impact of anti-reflux mucosal intervention on gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Anti-reflux mucosal intervention (ARMI), including anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA), is a promising endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Few studies reported a detailed analysis of the objective reflux parameters.

METHODS

Patients with chronic PPI-dependent GERD and receiving ARMI were prospectively enrolled. Comprehensive clinical symptom profiles, endoscopy results, and 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring were collected and analyzed before and 3 months after ARMI.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients undergoing ARMI (11 ARMS and 12 ARMA) were enrolled. The median (IQR) operative time and post-procedure stays were 50 (46-56) min and 2 (2-2) days without major complications. 73.9% of patients reported subjective global improvement. A significant decrease in the total reflux symptom index score was noted from 12 (5-19) to 8 (4-12) (P = 0.010). The esophageal acid exposure time (AET) significantly decreased from 4.6 (2.8-6.9) to 2.1 (1.1-5.6) (P = 0.013), and the number of acid refluxes and DeMeester score were significantly reduced. Three patients (13%) had increased AET (3.4% to 6.1%, 6.3% to 15.4%, and 3.2% to 5.6%); however, all reported global improvement and two patients could discontinue PPI subjectively. One patient (4.3%) had worsened erosive esophagitis and reflux symptoms. 56.5% of patients stopped PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

ARMI is generally effective and safe in PPI-dependent patients. However, possible negative effects of ARMI exist in some patients; further application of MII-pH is necessitated to evaluate the treatment response after ARMI and avoid the detrimental effect of PPI discontinuation. Graph.

Minimally invasive endoscopic therapies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

The prevalence of the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in the western world is increasing. Uncontrolled GORD can lead to harmful long-term sequela such as oesophagitis, stricture formation, Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Moreover, GORD has been shown to negatively impact quality of life. The current treatment paradigm for GORD consists of lifestyle modification, pharmacological control of gastric acid secretion or antireflux surgery. In recent years, several minimally invasive antireflux endoscopic therapies (ARET) have been developed which may play a role in bridging the unmet therapeutic gap between the medical and surgical treatment options. To ensure optimal patient outcomes following ARET, considered patient selection is crucial, which requires a mechanistic understanding of individual ARET options. Here, we will discuss the differences between ARETs along with an overview of the current evidence base. We also outline future research priorities that will help refine the future role of ARET.

The safety and efficacy of peroral endoscopic cardial constriction in gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common digestive disorders, which seriously affects the quality of life and brings a heavy burden to the medical care. Peroral endoscopic cardial constriction (PECC) can narrow the cardia through mucosal ligation to alleviate acid reflux symptoms. This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy of PECC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case series including patients diagnosed with GERD and undergoing PECC from September 2019 to July 2021. GERD-Q questionnaire and GERD-QOL questionnaire were applied to evaluate the symptom severity and the impact of life because of GERD.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients were included in our study. The mean GERD-Q score was 10.94 ± 2.11 before PECC, while 5.38 ± 3.90 after PECC. The mean GERD-QOL score was 43.60 ± 16.94 before PECC, while 73.65 ± 22.08 after PECC. 62.5% of patients were satisfied with the symptom control and no serious complications were reported in our study.

CONCLUSIONS

PECC is an efficient and safe minimally invasive endoscopic intervention for GERD. It can significantly improve GERD-related symptoms and quality of life.

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.