Evidence Hub

Endoscopic full-thickness plication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux after peroral endoscopic myotomy: a randomized sham-controlled study

A. Maydeo, G. Patil, N. Kamat, Ankit Dalal, Amol Vadgaonkar, Sanil Parekh, R. Daftary, Sehajad Vora

Endoscopy, 2022

60 participants · 24 citations

Abstract

Background Endoscopic full-thickness plication (EFTP) has shown promising results in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but its efficacy in GERD after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is unclear. Methods In a prospective, randomized trial of post-POEM patients dependent on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for documented GERD, patients underwent EFTP (plication to remodel the gastroesophageal flap valve) or an endoscopic sham procedure (positioning of the EFTP device, but no stapling). The primary end point was improvement in acid exposure time (AET) < 6 % (3 months). Secondary end points included improvement in esophagitis (3 months), GERD Questionnaire (GERDQ) score (3 and 6 months), and PPI usage (6 months). Results 60 patients were randomized (30 in each group). At 3 months, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved improvement in AET < 6 % in the EFTP group compared with the sham group (69.0 % [95 %CI 52.1–85.8] vs. 10.3 % [95 %CI 0–21.4], respectively). EFTP was statistically superior to sham (within-group analysis) in improving esophageal AET, DeMeester Score, and all reflux episodes ( P < 0.001). A nonsignificant improvement in esophagitis was noted in the EFTP group ( P = 0.14). Median GERDQ scores (3 months) were significantly better ( P < 0.001) in the EFTP group, and the same trend continued at 6 months. A higher proportion of patients in the sham group continued to use PPIs (72.4 % [95 %CI 56.1–88.7] vs. 27.6 % [95 %CI 11.3–43.8]). There were no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 60 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free