Literature DB >> 32084672

Gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy versus gastric electrical stimulation in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis: a propensity score-matched analysis of long term outcomes.

Shanshan Shen1,2, Hui Luo1,3, Cicily Vachaparambil1, Parit Mekaroonkamol1,4, Mohamed M Abdelfatah1, Guifang Xu1,2, Huimin Chen1,5, Liang Xia1,6, Hong Shi1,7, Steve Keilin1, Field Willingham1, Jennifer Christie1, Edward Lin1, Qiang Cai1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND : Gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM) and gastric electrical stimulation (GES) have been reported as treatment options for refractory gastroparesis. In this study, we compared the long term clinical outcomes of G-POEM versus GES in the treatment of such patients. METHODS : We retrospectively evaluated 111 consecutive patients with refractory gastroparesis between January 2009 and August 2018. To overcome selection bias, we used propensity score matching (1:1) between G-POEM and GES treatment. The primary outcome was the duration of clinical response. RESULTS : After propensity score matching, 23 patients were included in each group. After a median follow-up of 27.7 months, G-POEM had a significantly better and longer clinical response than GES (hazard ratio [HR] for clinical recurrence 0.39, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.16 - 0.95; P = 0.04). The median duration of response was 25.4 months (95 %CI 8.7 - 42.0) in the GES group and was not reached in the G-POEM group. The Kaplan - Meier estimate of 24-month clinical response rate was 76.6 % with G-POEM vs. 53.7 % with GES. GES appeared to have little effect on idiopathic gastroparesis (HR for recurrence with G-POEM vs. GES 0.35, 95 %CI 0.13 - 0.95; P = 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the GES group (26.1 % vs. 4.3 %; P = 0.10). CONCLUSION : Among patients with refractory gastroparesis, clinical response was better and lasted longer with G-POEM than with GES. The positive outcomes with G-POEM are likely to derive from the superior clinical response in patients with idiopathic gastroparesis. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32084672     DOI: 10.1055/a-1111-8566

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  5 in total

Review 1.  POEM, GPOEM, and ZPOEM.

Authors:  Nasim Parsa; David Friedel; Stavros N Stavropoulos
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Gastric Electrical Stimulation: Role and Clinical Impact on Chronic Nausea and Vomiting.

Authors:  Heithem Soliman; Guillaume Gourcerol
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 5.152

3.  Minimally Invasive Gastric Electrical Stimulation Using a Newly Developed Wireless Gastrostimulator: A Pilot Animal Study.

Authors:  Seung Han Kim; Hong Bae Kim; Hoon Jai Chun; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Sun Kim; Bora Keum; Yeon Seok Seo; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hong Sik Lee; Soon Ho Um; Chang Duck Kim
Journal:  J Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 4.924

Review 4.  Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy: Indications, technique, results and comparison with surgical approach.

Authors:  Maria Chiara Verga; Stefano Mazza; Francesco Azzolini; Fabrizio Cereatti; Clara Benedetta Conti; Andrea Drago; Sara Soro; Biagio Elvo; Roberto Grassia
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2022-01-27

5.  Characteristics of patients who underwent gastric electrical stimulation vs. surgical pyloric interventions for refractory gastroparesis.

Authors:  Saad Saleem; Azhar Hussain; Mohd A Alsamman; Faisal Inayat; Jasndeep Kaler; Aylin Tansel; Abell L Thomas
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.485

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.