Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(06): E854-E864
DOI: 10.1055/a-1802-0220
Review

Anti-reflux mucosectomy for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis[*]

Rajat Garg‡
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
,
Abdul Mohammed‡
2   Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
,
Amandeep Singh
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
,
Mary Schleicher
3   Cleveland Clinic Alumni library, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
,
Prashanthi N. Thota
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
,
Tarun Rustagi
4   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
Madhusudhan R Sanaka
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) is an emerging endoscopic treatment for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy ARMS in refractory GERD.

Methods A comprehensive search of multiple databases (through March 2020) was performed to identify studies that reported outcomes of ARMS for refractory GERD. Outcomes assessed included technical success, clinical response, and adverse events (AEs). Clinical response was defined as discontinuation (complete) or reduction (partial) of proton pump inhibitors post-ARMS at follow up.

Results A total of 307 patients (mean age 46.9 [8.1] years, 41.5 % females) were included from 10 studies. The technical success and clinical response rates were 97.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 94.6–99.0) and 80.1 % (95 % CI, 61.6–91.0), respectively. The pooled rate of complete and partial clinical response was 65.3 % (95 % CI, 51.4–77.0) and 21.5 % (95 % CI, 14.2–31.2), respectively. The rate of AEs was 17.2 % (95 % CI, 13.1–22.2) with most common AE being dysphagia/esophageal stricture followed by bleeding with rates of 11.4 % and 5.0 %, respectively. GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) (mean difference [MD] = 14.9, P < 0.001), GERD questionnaire (GERD-Q) (MD = 4.85, P < 0.001) and mean acid exposure time (MD = 2.39, P = 0.01) decreased significantly post-ARMS as compared to pre-procedure. There was no difference in terms of clinical response and AEs between ARMS and ARMS with banding on subgroup analysis.

Conclusions ARMS is a safe and effective procedure for treatment of refractory GERD with high rates of clinical response, acceptable safety profile and significant improvement in GERD-related quality of life. Prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

* Meeting presentations: An abstract of this manuscript was accepted for poster presentation at the American College of Gastroenterology, 2021.


Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 23 August 2021

Accepted after revision: 15 November 2021

Article published online:
10 June 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA. et al. Epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 2005; 54: 710-717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Miner Jr. P, Katz PO, Chen Y. et al. Gastric acid control with esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole: a five-way crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2616-2620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Subramanian CR, Triadafilopoulos G. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Rep 2015; 3: 41-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Oelschlager BK, Quiroga E, Parra JD. et al. Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 280-287 quiz 288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dominitz JA, Dire CA, Billingsley KG. et al. Complications and antireflux medication use after antireflux surgery. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 299-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ganz RA, Peters JH, Horgan S. Esophageal sphincter device for gastroesophageal reflux disease. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 2039-2040
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sanmiguel CP, Hagiike M, Mintchev MP. et al. Effect of electrical stimulation of the LES on LES pressure in a canine model. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2008; 295: G389-G394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bonavina L, Saino G, Bona D. et al. One hundred consecutive patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: 6 years of clinical experience from a single center. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217: 577-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Falk GW, Fennerty MB, Rothstein RI. AGA Institute technical review on the use of endoscopic therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol 2006; 131: 1315-1336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Inoue H, Ito H, Ikeda H. et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the absence of hiatus hernia: a pilot study. Ann Gastroenterol 2014; 27: 346-351
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. Ann Int Med 2009; 151: 264-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Europ J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 603-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. John Wiley & Sons Ltd New York 2000; 2000: 205-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence & inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 64: 1294-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin JA. et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bapaye A, Mahadik M, Pujari R. et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) for refractory GERD-Initial clinical experience. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 255
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Debourdeau A, Vitton V, Monino L. et al. Antireflux Mucosectomy Band (ARM-b) in treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease after bariatric surgery. Obesity Surg 2020; 30: 4654-4658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kessler WR, McNulty G, Lehman GA. A prospective, randomized study on the effect of band ligation with or without mucosectomy as a treatment for GERD: Pilot study, 12 month experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: AB120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mohan Prasad VG, Appadurai S, Suman MP. Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) for refractory GERD-Our 3yrs experience. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34: 232
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Monino L, Gonzalez JM, Vitton V. et al. Antireflux mucosectomy band in treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a pilot study for safety, feasibility and symptom control. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E147-E154
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ortega A, Roson P, Fernandez F. et al. Antireflux mucosectomy. preliminary results of a prospective study. Endoscopy 2019; 51: S240-S241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Patil G, Dalal A, Maydeo A. Feasibility and outcomes of anti-reflux mucosectomy for proton pump inhibitor dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease: First Indian study (with video). Digest Endosc 2020; 32: 745-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sumi K, Inoue H, Kobayashi Y. et al. Endoscopic treatment of proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease with anti-reflux mucosectomy: Experience of 109 cases. Dig Endosc 2021; 33: 347-354
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Wong HJ, Su B, Attaar M. et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) results in improved recovery and similar reflux quality of life outcomes compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Surg Endosc Other Intervent Tech 2021; DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08144-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Yoo I, Ko WJ, Kim HS. et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy using a cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection method for refractory gastroesophageal disease: a prospective feasibility study. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 1124-1131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 902-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Velanovich V, Vallance SR, Gusz JR. et al. Quality of life scale for gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Am Coll Surg 1996; 183: 217-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jones R, Junghard O, Dent J. et al. Development of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30: 1030-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jamieson JR, Stein HJ, DeMeester TR. et al. Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Am J Gastroenterol 1992; 87: 1102-1111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Johnson LF, DeMeester TR. Development of the 24-hour intraesophageal pH monitoring composite scoring system. J Clin Gastroenterol 1986; 8: 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shimamura Y, Inoue H. Anti-reflux mucosectomy: Can we do better?. Dig Endosc 2020; 32: 736-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lipham JC, DeMeester TR, Ganz RA. et al. The LINX(R) reflux management system: confirmed safety and efficacy now at 4 years. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 2944-2949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rodriguez L, Rodriguez P, Gomez B. et al. Electrical stimulation therapy of the lower esophageal sphincter is successful in treating GERD: final results of open-label prospective trial. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 1083-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Triadafilopoulos G. Stretta: a valuable endoscopic treatment modality for gastroesophageal reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 7730-7738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Danalioglu A, Cipe G, Toydemir T. et al. Endoscopic stapling in comparison to laparoscopic fundoplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Endosc 2014; 26: 37-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Richter JE, Kumar A, Lipka S. et al. Efficacy of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication vs transoral incisionless fundoplication or proton pump inhibitors in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 1298-1308 e1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 McCarty TR, Itidiare M, Njei B. et al. Efficacy of transoral incisionless fundoplication for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 708-725
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Dodds WJ, Dent J, Hogan WJ. et al. Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with reflux esophagitis. N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 1547-1552
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Tanabe M, Inoue H, Ueno A. et al. Sa1255 A novel endoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease; anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA). Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: AB190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar