Literature DB >> 25047169

Long-term results of electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter for treatment of proximal GERD.

Toshitaka Hoppo1, Leonardo Rodríguez, Edy Soffer, Michael D Crowell, Blair A Jobe.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients, using EndoStim(®) LES stimulation system (EndoStim BV, the Hague, Netherlands), enhances LES pressure, decrease distal esophageal acid exposure, improves symptoms, and eliminates the need in many patients for daily GERD medications. AIM: To evaluate, in a post hoc analysis, the effect of LES stimulation on proximal esophageal acid exposure in a subgroup of patients with abnormal proximal esophageal acid exposure.
METHODS: Nineteen patients (median age 54 years; IQR 47-64; men-10) with GERD partially responsive to proton pump inhibitors (PPI), hiatal hernia ≤ 3 cm, esophagitis ≤ LA grade C underwent laparoscopic implantation of the LES stimulator. LES stimulation at 20 Hz, 215 μs, 5-8 m Amp sessions was delivered in 6-12, 30 min sessions each day. Esophageal pH at baseline and after 12-months of LES stimulation was measured 5 and 23 cm above the manometric upper border of LES.
RESULTS: Total, upright and supine values of median (IQR) proximal esophageal pH at baseline were 0.4 (0.1-1.4), 0.6 (0.2-2.3), and 0 (0.0-0.2) %, respectively, and at 12 months on LES-EST were 0 (0-0) % (p = 0.001 total and upright; p = 0.043 supine comparisons). 24-hour distal esophageal acid exposure improved from 10.2 (7.6-11.7) to 3.4 (1.6-7.0) % (p = 0.001). Seven (37%) patients had abnormal (>1.1%) 24-hour proximal acid exposure at baseline; all normalized at 12 months (p = 0.008). In these 7 patients, total, upright, and supine median proximal acid exposure values at baseline were 1.7 (1.3-4.1), 2.9 (1.9-3.7), and 0.3 (0-4.9) %, respectively, and after 12 months of LES-EST were 0 (0-0.0), 0 (0-0.1), and 0 (0-0) % (p = 0.018 total and upright; p = 0.043 supine comparisons). Distal esophageal pH for this group improved from 9.3 (7.8-17.2) at baseline to 3.2 (1.1-3.7) % at 12-months (p = 0.043). There were no GI side effects such as dysphagia, gas-bloat or diarrhea or device or procedure related serious adverse events with LES-EST. There was also a significant improvement in their GERD-HRQL scores.
CONCLUSION: LES-EST is associated with normalization of proximal esophageal pH in patients with GERD and may be useful in treating those with proximal GERD. The LES-EST is safe without typical side effects associated with traditional antireflux surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25047169     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3603-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  41 in total

1.  Reflux parameters as modified by EsophyX or laparoscopic fundoplication in refractory GERD.

Authors:  M Frazzoni; R Conigliaro; R Manta; G Melotti
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 8.171

2.  Characterization of reflux events after fundoplication using combined impedance-pH recording.

Authors:  S Roman; G Poncet; I Serraj; F Zerbib; J Boulez; F Mion
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 3.  Systematic review: role of acid, weakly acidic and weakly alkaline reflux in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  G E Boeckxstaens; A Smout
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 8.171

4.  Characteristics and clinical relevance of proximal esophageal pH monitoring.

Authors:  Mike Cool; Johan Poelmans; Louw Feenstra; Jan Tack
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 5.  Review of the quality of life and burden of illness in gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Ingela Wiklund
Journal:  Dig Dis       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.404

6.  Determinants of gastro-oesophageal reflux perception in patients with persistent symptoms despite proton pump inhibitors.

Authors:  F Zerbib; A Duriez; S Roman; M Capdepont; F Mion
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-10-19       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Antireflux surgery in patients with chronic cough and abnormal proximal exposure as measured by hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance.

Authors:  Toshitaka Hoppo; Yoshihiro Komatsu; Blair A Jobe
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 14.766

8.  Effect of electrical stimulation of the LES on LES pressure in a canine model.

Authors:  Claudia P Sanmiguel; Masanobu Hagiike; Martin P Mintchev; Ryan Dela Cruz; Edward H Phillips; Scott A Cunneen; Jeffrey L Conklin; Edy E Soffer
Journal:  Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.052

Review 9.  Endoscopic therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease: outcomes of the randomized-controlled trials done to date.

Authors:  Richard I Rothstein
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.062

10.  Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Evaluation of primary repair in 100 consecutive patients.

Authors:  T R DeMeester; L Bonavina; M Albertucci
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  [Surgical and interventional procedures for reflux therapy : Endoscopic or laparoscopic?]

Authors:  K U Asche; A Kaindlstorfer; R Pointner
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  Review of antireflux procedures for proton pump inhibitor nonresponsive gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  L Hillman; R Yadlapati; M Whitsett; A J Thuluvath; M A Berendsen; J E Pandolfino
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 3.429

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.