Do endoscopic antireflux procedures fit in the current treatment paradigm of gastroesophageal reflux disease?

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy of endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF) in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Endoscopic antireflux therapy is widely used in clinical practice. Peroral endoscopic cardial constriction (PECC), antireflux mucosal intervention (ARMI), and radiofrequency ablation (RF) possess analogous antireflux mechanisms. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of antireflux therapy during endoscopic cardia peripheral tissue scar formation (ECSF) procedures. We comprehensively searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wan-Fang databases for articles published from January 1990 to January 2024. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to assess the outcomes, with outcome metrics including the Gastroesophageal Reflux Questionnaire (GERD-Q) score, proton pump inhibitor discontinuation rate, pH <4.2 percent acid reflux time (AET), lower esophageal pressure (LES pressure), DeMeester score, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Twenty studies involving 1219 patients were included. PECC was significantly superior to RF in lowering the patients' postoperative GERD-Q scores(MD = -2.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): [-3.02, -1.66]), augmentation of LES pressures(MD = 3.22, 95% CI: [1.21, 5.23]), and having a lower incidence of serious adverse events. ARMI was preferable to PECC (MD = -2.87, 95% CI [-4.23, -1.51])and RF (MD = -1.12, 95% CI [-1.79, -0.54]) in reducing the AET percentage, but was not as effective as PECC in lowering GERD-Q scores(MD = -1.50, 95% CI [-2.47, -0.53]). The incidence of adverse effects was less than 10% for all interventions, with most of them mildly self-resolving. Each ECSF procedure resulted in a favorable outcome in patients with GERD. Considering the safety and efficacy of treatment, PECC was the most favorable choice among ECSF procedures.

Efficacy of endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for proton pump inhibitor-dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease: Multicenter prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in a Chinese population, and to explore the factors associated with favorable efficacy.

METHODS

A multicenter, single-armed prospective cohort study was conducted. PPI-dependent GERD patients were enrolled and underwent RFA. The primary outcome was improvement of GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL). Secondary outcomes were symptom improvement, satisfaction, PPI use, and the indicators of 24-h pH-impedance monitoring. A nomogram to predict complete remission was constructed.

RESULTS

In total, 66 patients were included. The GERD-HRQL score was significantly reduced at the 3 month (mean difference, 14.7 [12.6-16.9]), 6 month (mean difference, 15.9 [13.8-18.1]), 12 month (mean difference, 16.7 [14.4-18.9]), 24 month (mean difference, 18.4 [16.2-20.1]), 36 month (mean difference, 18.2 [16.3-20.4]), and 48 month follow-up (mean difference, 16.1 [14.2-18.3]), all P < 0.001. The esophageal and extra-esophageal symptom scores were all significantly decreased. The proportion of satisfaction and no PPI use were significantly higher. With regard to the indicators of 24-h pH-impedance monitoring, acid exposure time (AET), and DeMeester score, but not lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, decreased significantly at the 12 month follow-up. A nomogram based on age, body mass index (BMI), baseline AET, and LES pressure was then constructed and showed good discrimination in the prediction of complete remission following RFA.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that RFA improved life quality as well as symptoms in PPI-dependent GERD patients in a Chinese population. Younger age, higher BMI, lower baseline AET, and higher baseline LES pressure indicate favorable efficacy of RFA.

Review article: Oesophageal disorders in chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease are common worldwide and significantly impact quality of life. The intricate link between these conditions, including how oesophageal disorders like GERD, Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal cancer affect and are affected by chronic liver disease, remains poorly understood.

AIMS

To review the relationship between oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease, evaluating epidemiology, pathophysiology and therapeutic factors.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on the relationship between oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis, using the PubMed database RESULTS: Oesophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett's oesophagus, oesophageal cancer, oesophageal motor disorders and oesophageal candidiasis are prevalent among individuals with cirrhosis, exacerbating the burden of liver disease. These diseases have a multifaceted symptomatology and pathogenic basis, posing a significant challenge in cirrhotic patients that necessitates careful diagnosis and management. Additionally, therapies frequently used for these diseases, such as proton pump inhibitors, require careful consideration in cirrhotic patients due to potential adverse effects and altered pharmacokinetics. Managing oesophageal disorders in cirrhotic patients requires a cautious approach due to possible interactions with medications and the risk of adverse effects. Furthermore, symptoms associated with these conditions are often exacerbated by common interventions in patients with cirrhosis, such as band ligation for oesophageal varices.

CONCLUSIONS

Oesophageal disorders are common in cirrhosis and increase the disease burden. These conditions require careful management due to complex symptoms and treatment risks. Proton pump inhibitors and other therapies must be used cautiously, as cirrhosis interventions can worsen symptoms.

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.

Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Diagnosis and Management

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common, with increasing worldwide disease prevalence and high economic burden. A significant number of patients will remain symptomatic following an empiric proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial. Persistent symptoms despite PPI therapy are often mislabeled as refractory GERD. For patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD), testing is performed off antisecretory therapy to identify objective evidence of pathologic reflux using criteria outlined by the Lyon consensus. In proven GERD, differentiation between refractory symptoms (persisting symptoms despite optimized antisecretory therapy) and refractory GERD (abnormal reflux metrics on ambulatory pH impedance monitoring and/or persistent erosive esophagitis on endoscopy while on optimized PPI therapy) can direct subsequent management. While refractory symptoms may arise from esophageal hypersensitivity or functional heartburn, proven refractory GERD requires personalization of the management approach, tapping from an array of non-pharmacologic, pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical interventions. Proper diagnosis and management of refractory GERD is critical to mitigate undesirable long-term complications such as strictures, Barrett's esophagus, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This review outlines the diagnostic workup of patients presenting with refractory GERD symptoms, describes the distinction between unproven and proven GERD, and provides a comprehensive review of the current treatment strategies available for the management of refractory GERD.

Efficacy of Endoscopic and Surgical Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Although various endoscopic and surgical procedures are available for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the comparative efficacy of these treatments has not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of various endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. All relevant randomized controlled trials published through August 2021 that compared the efficacy of endoscopic and surgical GERD treatments, including radiofrequency energy delivery, endoscopic plication, reinforcement of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), and surgical fundoplication, were searched. A network meta-analysis was performed to analyze treatment outcomes, including the requirement of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) continuation and GERD-health-related quality of life questionnaire score (GERD-HRQL). As such, 25 studies with 2854 patients were included in the analysis. Endoscopic plication, reinforcement of the LES, and surgical fundoplication were effective in reducing the requirement of PPI continuation compared to PPI therapy (pooled risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]): endoscopic plication, 0.34 (0.21–0.56); reinforcement of LES, 0.32 (0.16–0.63), and surgical fundoplication, 0.16 (0.06–0.42)). Radiofrequency energy delivery tended to reduce the requirement of PPI continuation compared to PPI therapy (RR (95% CI): 0.55 (0.25–1.18)). In terms of GERD-HRQL, all endoscopic and surgical treatments were superior to PPI therapy. In conclusion, all endoscopic or surgical treatments, except radiofrequency energy delivery, were effective for discontinuation of PPI medication, especially surgical fundoplication. Quality of life, measured by GERD-HRQL, also improved in patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical treatment compared to those who received PPI therapy.

Untangling Nonerosive Reflux Disease From Functional Heartburn

Heartburn is a common symptom in clinical practice, but as many as 70% of patients have normal findings from upper endoscopy. Most of these patients have nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) or functional esophageal disorders. NERD is the most common phenotype of gastroesophageal reflux disease, and functional heartburn is the most common cause for refractory heartburn. In patients with NERD, symptoms arise from gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal hypersensitivity, whereas in patients with functional heartburn, symptoms result from esophageal hypersensitivity. A diagnosis of NERD requires endoscopy and reflux testing, whereas a diagnosis of functional heartburn also requires esophageal manometry. NERD is treated most commonly with medical, endoscopic, and surgical antireflux approaches, whereas functional heartburn as well as NERD can be treated with neuromodulators, psychological intervention, and complementary medicine options.

[Update on Endoscopic Therapies for the Treatment of GERD: GERDX, MUSE, EsophyX]

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been a problem for patients throughout in recent decades worldwide and its prevalence is increasing. Until 20 years ago, the established treatments were the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and varieties of laparoscopic fundoplication (LF). Increasing experience with endoscopy and knowledge of the oesophagogastric junction (EGJ) has led to new options in the treatment of GERD. However, promising short term effects have been found with radiofrequency ablation (RFA, Stretta device), endoscopic mucosal resection (ARMS) for induction of scar tissue at the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) and endoscopic suture devices like GERDX, MUSE and EsophyX to reconstruct the flap valve at the EGJ. Long-term follow-up data and randomised controlled studies in comparison to LF are still rare.

Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) as a new treatment for gastroesophageal reflux refractory to proton pump inhibitors: a pilot study

Background  The incidence of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been increasing. While surgical intervention with Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication remains the gold standard, less invasive anti-reflux interventions are desired. We have developed a minimally invasive anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) treatment. Herein, we report its technical details and describe its feasibility, safety, and efficacy in PPI-refractory GERD. Methods  We conducted a prospective single-center single-arm interventional trial evaluating the outcome of ARMA in 12 patients with PPI-refractory GERD. GERD-Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (GERD-HRQL) evaluation, Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of GERD (FSSG) assessment, and impedance-pH monitoring were performed at baseline and at 2 months post-ARMA. Results  A total of 12 patients underwent ARMA with a median follow-up duration of 9 months (range: 6 - 14 months). Median GERD-HRQL score significantly improved from 30.5 to 12 ( P  = 0.002); median FSSG score significantly improved from 25 to 10.5 ( P  = 0.002), and median DeMeester score decreased from 33.5 to 2.8 ( P  = 0.049) at 2 months follow-up. No immediate complications were observed. Conclusion  Our pilot study has shown that ARMA, a new endoscopic treatment for PPI-refractory GERD, is simple, safe, and improves GERD-related symptoms and objective acid reflux parameters.

A potential simple endoscopic antireflux method, "the Ripple Procedure" to reduce distensibility at the esophagogastric junction in a porcine model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Currently available endoscopic or minimally invasive antireflux modalities are not widely accepted due to high procedure cost or inconsistent results. Therefore, a simpler and less technically demanding method is required. We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of new endoscopic antireflux method (the Ripple Procedure) using functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP).

METHODS

This 5-week survival study included 10 domestic pigs (control, n = 4; experimental [Ripple], n = 6). The procedure includes the following steps: (i) semicircular marking along the lesser curvature of the cardia; (ii) submucosal injection; and (iii) semicircular mucosal incision along the marking. Endoscopic and FLIP evaluations were performed preoperatively and on postoperative days (PODs) 14 and 35. Technical feasibility was evaluated, and FLIP parameters, including the distensibility index (DI) at the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) and histopathological findings, were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The median procedure time was 28 (23.5-33.8) min. There was no significant difference in dysphagia score and body weight between groups. On POD 35, the Ripple group showed significantly lower EGJ DI at 30 mL [2.0 (1.3-2.5) vs 4.9 (2.7-5.0), P = 0.037]. The EGJ DI was significantly reduced at 30 mL, compared with that at the baseline level [- 59.0% (- 68.8% to - 32.1%) vs 27.8% (- 26.3% to 83.1%), P = 0.033]. Histologic evaluation revealed submucosal granulation tissues near the mucosal incision site, with increased intervening fibrosis between lower esophageal sphincter fibers in the Ripple group.

CONCLUSION

The EGJ DI significantly decreased after the Ripple Procedure; hence, the procedure appears to be feasible and effective in this porcine model.

Biomaterials in Gastroenterology: A Critical Overview

In spite of the large diversity of diagnostic and interventional devices associated with gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, there is little information on the impact of the biomaterials (metals, polymers) contained in these devices upon body tissues and, indirectly, upon the treatment outcomes. Other biomaterials for gastroenterology, such as adhesives and certain hemostatic agents, have been investigated to a greater extent, but the information is fragmentary. Much of this situation is due to the paucity of details disclosed by the manufacturers of the devices. Moreover, for most of the applications in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, there are no studies available on the biocompatibility of the device materials when in intimate contact with mucosae and other components of the GI tract. We have summarized the current situation with a focus on aspects of biomaterials and biocompatibility related to the device materials and other agents, with an emphasis on the GI endoscopic procedures. Procedures and devices used for the control of bleeding, for polypectomy, in bariatrics, and for stenting are discussed, particularly dwelling upon the biomaterial-related features of each application. There are indications that research is progressing steadily in this field, and the establishment of the subdiscipline of "gastroenterologic biomaterials" is not merely a remote projection. Upon the completion of this article, the gastroenterologist should be able to understand the nature of biomaterials and to achieve a suitable and beneficial perception of their significance in gastroenterology. Likewise, the biomaterialist should become aware of the specific tasks that the biomaterials must fulfil when placed within the GI tract, and regard such applications as both a challenge and an incentive for progressing the research in this field.

Spotlight on the Linx™ Reflux Management System for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: evidence and research

BACKGROUND

The initial approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) management typically involves lifestyle modification and medical therapy utilizing acid reducing agents such as histamine blockers and proton pump inhibitors. In severe cases refractory to such treatments, surgical therapy may be indicated. The gold standard for surgical treatment of GERD is the laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. In recent years, a new technique known as magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been developed using the Linx™ Reflux Management System. This is an implantable ring of magnetic beads that is placed around the esophagus at the gastroesophageal junction to restore lower esophageal integrity. The aim of this review is to discuss the current literature regarding indications, surgical technique, efficacy, and complications of MSA using the Linx device.

METHODS

A standardized literature search was performed yielding 367 abstracts. After elimination due to duplicates between databases and irrelevance, 96 articles remained. The information found to be significant and non-redundant was included in this review.

CONCLUSION

After several years of clinical application, the Linx device has been shown to not only be effective for the management of GERD but also be as effective as fundoplication. With respect to safety, the most common complication of MSA is dysphagia. This often resolved without intervention, but esophageal dilation or device explanation are occasionally necessary. Not fully appreciated in earlier reviews, erosion of the device into the esophagus appears to be the most significant complication of the device after extended follow-up. While very rare, the potentially severe consequences of this phenomenon suggest that the device should be used with some restraint and that patients should be made aware of this potential morbidity. Fortunately, in the few cases of device erosion described in the literature reviewed, the Linx device was easily and safely removed.

New Approaches to Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most common gastrointestinal disorder of the esophagus. It is a chronic, progressive disorder that presents most typically with heartburn and regurgitation and atypically with chest pain, dysphagia, chronic cough, globus, or sore throat. The mainstay for diagnosis and characterization of the disorder is esophagoduodenoscopy (EGD), high-resolution esophageal manometry, and symptom-associated ambulatory esophageal pH impedance monitoring. Additional studies that can be useful in certain clinical presentations include gastric scintigraphy and oral contrast upper gastrointestinal radiographic series.

DISCUSSION

Refractory GERD can be surgically managed with various techniques. In obese individuals, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass should be considered due to significant symptom improvement and lower incidence of recurrent symptoms with weight loss. Otherwise, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is the preferred surgical technique for treatment of this disease with concomitant hiatal hernia repair when present for either procedure. The short-term risks associated with these procedures include esophageal or gastric injury, pneumothorax, wound infection, and dysphagia. Emerging techniques for treatment of this disease include the Linx Reflux Management System, EndoStim LES Stimulation System, Esophyx® and MUSE™ endoscopic fundoplication devices, and the Stretta endoscopic ablation system. Outcomes after surgical management of refractory GERD are highly dependent on adherence to strict surgical indications and appropriate patient-specific procedure selection.

Endoluminal Therapy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: In Between the Pill and the Knife?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic disease characterized by symptoms of heartburn and acid regurgitation. Uncontrolled GERD can significantly impact quality of life, can lead to complications, and increases the risk of esophageal cancer. Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing prevalence of GERD among adults in Western populations. The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in conjunction with lifestyle modifications remains the mainstay therapy. However, the efficacy of this intervention is often hampered by adherence, costs, and the risks of long-term PPI use. Anti-reflux surgery is an option for patients with refractory symptoms or in those in whom medical therapy is contraindicated or not desirable. While conventional surgery has an acceptable safety profile, there has been an increasing interest in alternate treatments that may potentially offer similar results and be associated with a faster recovery. Recent advances in interventional endoluminal techniques have introduced novel incisionless anti-reflux procedures. While the current data are promising, further larger prospective studies are needed in order to assess the long-term efficacy of endoluminal therapies and its place among the treatment options for GERD.

Complications of therapeutic gastroscopy/colonoscopy other than resection

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is profoundly utilized for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The therapeutic potential of GI endoscopy has amplified many folds with the evolution of novel techniques as well as equipments. However, with the augmentation of therapeutic endoscopy, the extent, likelihood and severity of adverse events have increased as well. The attendant risks and adverse events with therapeutic endoscopy are many folds that of diagnostic endoscopy. Besides endoscopic resection, therapeutic endoscopy is widely utilized for hemostasis in GI bleeds, dilatation of stenosis, enteral stenting, foreign body removal, ablation of Barrett's esophagus etc. Major adverse events associated with interventional endoscopic procedures include bleeding and perforation. Adverse events of endoscopic interventions are diverse and related to the underlying disease, therapeutic modality used and operator's experience. Many of these adverse events can be prevented. Early recognition of an unavoidable adverse event is important to minimize the associated morbidity and mortality.

Endoscopic Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Revisited

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is defined by the presence of troublesome symptoms resulting from the reflux of gastric contents. The prevalence of GERD is increasing globally. An incompetent lower esophageal sphincter underlies the pathogenesis of GERD. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) form the core of GERD management. However, a substantial number of patients do not respond well to PPIs. The next option is anti-reflux surgery, which is efficacious, but it has its own limitations, such as gas bloating, inability to belch or vomit, and dysphagia. Laparoscopic placement of magnetic augmentation device is emerging as a useful alternative to conventional anti-reflux surgery. However, invasiveness of a surgical procedure remains a concern for the patients. The proportion of PPI non-responders or partial responders who do not wish for anti-reflux surgery defines the ‘treatment gap’ and needs to be addressed. The last decade has witnessed the fall and rise of many endoscopic devices for GERD. Major endoscopic strategies include radiofrequency ablation and endoscopic fundoplication devices. Current endoscopic devices score high on subjective improvement, but have been unimpressive in objective improvement like esophageal acid exposure. In this review, we discuss the current endoscopic anti-reflux therapies and available evidence for their role in the management of GERD.

A Review of New Surgical and Endoscopic Therapies for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in the United States today is binary, with the majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease being treated with antisecre-tory medications and a minority of patients, typically those with volume regurgitation, undergoing Nissen fundoplication. However, there has been increasing dissatisfaction with proton pump inhibitor therapy among a significant number of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease owing to cost, side effects, and refractory symptoms, and there has been a general reluctance to undergo surgical fundoplication due to its attendant side-effect profile. As a result, a therapy gap exists for many patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Alternative techniques are available for these gap patients, including 2 endoscopic fundoplication techniques, an endoscopic radiofrequency energy delivery technique, and 2 minimally invasive surgical procedures. These alternative techniques have been extensively evaluated; however, there are limitations to published studies, including arbitrary definitions of success, variable efficacy measurements, deficient reporting tools, inconsistent study designs, inconsistent lengths of follow-up postintervention, and lack of comparison data across techniques. Although all of the techniques appear to be safe, the endoscopic techniques lack demonstrable reflux control and show variable symptom improvement and variable decreases in proton pump inhibitor use. The surgical techniques are more robust, with evidence for adequate reflux control, symptom improvement, and decreased proton pump inhibitor use; however, these techniques are more difficult to perform and are more intrusive. Additionally, these alternative techniques have only been studied in patients with relatively normal anatomy. The field of gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment is in need of consistent definitions of efficacy, standardized study design and outcome measurements, and improved reporting tools before the role of these techniques can be fully ascertained.

A comparison of the endoscopic and laparoscopic view of the gastroesophageal junction in the use of transoral fundoplication

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic fundoplication requires accurate evaluation of the gastroesophageal junction (GJ) to determine if hiatal hernia repair is necessary before fundoplication. We compared the endoscopic and laparoscopic evaluations of the GJ.

METHODS

A total of 53 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease underwent a laparoscopic repair of a hiatal defect before endoscopic fundoplication. The video of the preoperative endoscopic evaluation was compared with the laparoscopic video (n = 44). Nine patients were excluded because both endoscopic and laparoscopic videos were not available. A 2-tailed paired t test was used to assess the difference between the 2 study groups.

RESULTS

The greatest transverse dimension of the hiatus assessed endoscopically was 3.30 cm ± 1.00 vs 3.88 cm ± 1.03 assessed laparoscopically, P < .001. In 22.8%, the average endoscopic Hill grade was lower than the estimated Hill grade when viewed laparoscopically. In 11.1% (range, 6% to 15%) of cases, the endoscopic view indicated a hiatal hernia repair was unnecessary when the matching laparoscopic view indicated hiatal repair would be needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic evaluation of the GJ may underestimate the radial size of the hiatal defect.

Advances in the evaluation and management of esophageal disease of systemic sclerosis

Symptoms of heartburn and dysphagia as well as objective findings of abnormal esophageal acid exposure and esophageal dysmotility are common in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Treatments for SSc esophageal disease are generally limited to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treatment with proton pump inhibitors. Progresses made in esophageal diagnostic testing offer the potential for improved clinical characterization of esophageal disease in SSc that may help direct management decisions. In addition to reviewing GERD management in patients with SSc, present and potential uses of endoscopy, reflux monitoring, manometry, impedance planimetry, and endoscopic ultrasound are discussed.

Novel surgical options for gastroesophageal reflux disease

There are limited options to patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who are not satisfied with acid suppression therapy. Fundoplication, the standard surgical procedure for GERD, is effective but is associated with adverse side effects and has thus been performed less frequently, creating a need for alternative surgical interventions that are effective, yet less invasive and reversible. Lately, two such interventions were developed: the magnetic sphincter augmentation and electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter. Human studies describing safety and efficacy over a follow-up period of a number of years have been published, documenting efficacy and safety of these interventions. Future studies should clarify the role of these procedures in the spectrum of GERD therapy.

Two-year results of intermittent electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Lower esophageal sphincter (LES) electrical stimulation therapy (EST) has been shown to improve outcome in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients at 1 year. The aim of this open-label extension trial (NCT01578642) was to study the 2-year safety and efficacy of LES-EST in GERD patients.

METHODS

GERD patients responsive partially to proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with off-PPI GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) of ≥20, 24-hour esophageal pH ≤4.0 for >5% of the time, hiatal hernia ≤3 cm, and esophagitis LA grade C or lower participated in this trial. Bipolar stitch electrodes and a pulse generator (EndoStim BV, The Hague, The Netherlands) were implanted laparoscopically. LES-EST at 20 Hz, 215 μs, 3-8 mAmp was delivered over 30-minute sessions, 6-12 sessions per day, starting on day 1 after implantation. Patients were evaluated using GERD-HRQL, symptom diaries, Short Form-12, and esophageal pH testing at regular intervals. Stimulation sessions were optimized based on residual symptoms and esophageal pH at follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (mean age [SD] = 52 [12] years; 14 men) were implanted successfully; 23 patients participated in the 2-year extension trial, and 21 completed their 2-year evaluation. At 2 years, there was improvement in their median GERD-HRQL on LES-EST compared with both their on-PPI (9 vs 0; P = .001) and off-PPI (23.5 vs. 0; P < .001) baseline scores. Median 24-hour distal esophageal acid exposure improved from 10% at baseline to 4% (per-protocol analysis; P < .001) at 2 years with 71% demonstrating either normalization or a ≥50% decrease in their distal esophageal acid exposure. All except 5 patients (16/21) reported complete cessation of PPI use; only 2 patients were using a PPI regularly (≥50% of days). There was significant improvement in sleep quality and daily symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation on LES-EST. At baseline, 92% of the subjects (22/24) reported that they were "unsatisfied" with their condition off-PPI and 71% (17/24) on-PPI compared with 0% (0/21) "unsatisfied" at the 24-month visits on LES-EST. There were no device- or therapy-related serious adverse events and no untoward sensation or dysphagia reported with LES-EST.

CONCLUSION

LES-EST is safe and effective for treating patients with GERD over a period of 2 years. LES-EST resulted in a significant and sustained improvement in GERD symptoms, and esophageal acid exposure and eliminated PPI use in majority of patients (16 of 21). Further, LES-EST was not associated with any gastrointestinal side effects or adverse events.

Electrical stimulation therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) of the lower esophageal sphincter is a relatively new technique for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that may address the need of GERD patients, unsatisfied with acid suppressive medication and concerned with the potential risks of surgical fundoplication. In this paper we review available data about EST for GERD, including the development of the technique, implant procedure, safety and results from open-label trials. Two short-term temporary stimulation and long-term open-label human trials each were initiated to investigate the safety and efficacy of EST for the treatment of GERD and currently up to 2 years follow-up results are available. The results of EST are promising as the open-label studies have shown that EST is a safe technique with a significant improvement in both subjective outcomes of symptoms and objective outcomes of esophageal acid exposure in patients with GERD. However, long-term data from larger number of patients and a sham-controlled trial are required before EST can be conclusively advised as a viable treatment option for GERD patients.

Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms not responding to proton pump inhibitor: GERD, NERD, NARD, esophageal hypersensitivity or dyspepsia?

Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is a common gastrointestinal process that can generate symptoms of heartburn and chest pain. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the gold standard for the treatment of GER; however, a substantial group of GER patients fail to respond to PPIs. In the past, it was believed that acid reflux into the esophagus causes all, or at least the majority, of symptoms attributed to GER, with both erosive esophagitis and nonerosive outcomes. However, with modern testing techniques it has been shown that, in addition to acid reflux, the reflux of nonacid gastric and duodenal contents into the esophagus may also induce GER symptoms. It remains unknown how weakly acidic or alkaline refluxate with a pH similar to a normal diet induces GER symptoms. Esophageal hypersensitivity or functional dyspepsia with superimposed heartburn may be other mechanisms of symptom generation, often completely unrelated to GER. Detailed studies investigating the pathophysiology of esophageal hypersensitivity are not conclusive, and definitions of the various disease states may overlap and are often confusing. The authors aim to clarify the pathophysiology, definition, diagnostic techniques and medical treatment of patients with heartburn symptoms who fail PPI therapy.