[Clinical analysis of recurrence rate and symptom improvement in gastro-esophageal reflux disease patients]

Laparoscopic Anterior Partial Fundoplication is Comparable With Nissen Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) has been the gold standard for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but the side effects of dysphagia and bloating have lead to interest in partial fundoplication as an alternative.

AIM

To compare the symptomatic and objective parameters after LNF and laparoscopic anterior partial fundoplication (LAPF) in patients with GERD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted in the Division of Minimal Access Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College from June 2008 to October 2016. Patients with GERD with high score on 24-hour pH monitoring were selected for surgery (LAPF) and were compared with our historical control of 25 patients who underwent LNF. The preoperative and postoperative symptom score and objective parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 50 GERD patients, 20 patients underwent surgery (LAPF) and these were compared with 25 patients who underwent LNF. Demester score, modified Visick grade decreased from 4.12, 3.23 in LNF; 4.35, 3.35 in LAPF to 0, 1 in both groups. There was significant and similar increase in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) length, intra-abdominal LES length, LES pressure. The 24-h pH) decreased from 10.18% and 8.08% to 0.85% and 1.09% in LNF and LAPF, respectively. At 1 year and 5 years of follow-up, symptom scores, manometric analysis, and pH metry evaluation remained to be improved in both the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LAPF is as effective as LNF for GERD, with less dysphagia.

Electroacupuncture to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease lowers the quality of life and increases medical costs. Electroacupuncture has been used to ease symptoms and improve gastrointestinal motility in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. The main purposes of this study are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this procedure.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a protocol for a randomized, patient-blinded, assessor-blinded, sham-controlled trial. Sixty participants with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, who have previously undergone standard treatment, will be recruited from August 2015 at Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine Hospital. The participants will be allocated to either the electroacupuncture (n = 30) or the sham electroacupuncture group (n = 30); the allocation will be concealed from both the participants and the assessors. The EA group will undergo penetrating acupuncture at 18 fixed points and two optional points chosen using the pattern identification for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Electrical stimulation will be applied at some of the acupoints. The sham electroacupuncture group will undergo nonpenetrating acupuncture without electrical stimulation at 18 nonspecific points, each of which will be only 2 cm away from the true acupoints used in the electroacupuncture group. In both groups, the procedure will be performed using the Park device. The treatment will last for 6 weeks (with two sessions each week), and the outcome will be evaluated at baseline, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks. The primary outcome will be the proportion of responders with adequate symptom relief, whereas the secondary outcomes will comprise the results of the Nepean dyspepsia index; the Korean gastrointestinal symptom rating scale; the EQ-5D™; levels of gastrin, motilin, and inflammatory cytokines; the perceived stress scale; the qi-stagnation questionnaire; the patient global impression of change; and the spleen qi deficiency questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

The results of this trial will provide information about the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, as well as evidence regarding the use of electroacupuncture to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease in real clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service Identifier, KCT0001653 . Registered on 12 October 2015.

A randomized, double blinded, clinical trial to assess the efficacy and cost effectiveness of omeprazole compared to rabeprazole in the maintenance therapy of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost efficiency of omeprazole 10 mg and rabeprazole 10 mg once daily for 24 weeks in the maintenance therapy.

Methods

This was a randomized, open-label study enrolling 279 patients with erosive esophagitis A or B (Los Angeles classification) and typical gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Patients who showed complete endoscopic and symptomatic healing after 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitor treatment were randomly allocated to maintenance treatment with omeprazole 10 mg once daily or rabeprazole 10 mg once daily for 42 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with symptomatic remission at 42 weeks.

Results

At the end of 42 weeks of maintenance therapy, 96.4% of omeprazole and 95.1% of rabeprazole treated patients remained symptom free (P > 0.05). Two drugs were also comparable with regard to the severity and frequency of reflux symptoms during the maintenance phase (P > 0.05). By the cost-minimization analysis, the mean total costs per patient for remaining symptom-free for 6 months were 241,775 won for omeprazole and 287,115 won for rabeprazole, respectively.

Conclusions

Omeprazole 10 mg appeared to have similar efficacy in maintaining symptomatic remission as rabeprazole 10 mg, but was superior to rabeprazole 10 mg in terms of cost efficiency in the maintenance therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms.