Safety and efficacy of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty for obesity management in new bariatric endoscopy programs: a multicenter international study.

Background: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an incisionless procedure that reduces the size of the gastric cavity. In prior studies, it has been proven to be a safe and effective treatment for obesity. In this study, we performed a collaborative study to evaluate the effectiveness of ESG among new endobariatric programs. Methods: This was an international, multicenter study reviewing the outcomes of ESG in centers starting ESG programs. Total body weight loss, change of body mass index (BMI), excess body weight loss (EBWL), technical success, duration of hospitalization, and immediate and delayed adverse events and complications at 24 h, 1 week, and 1, 3, and 6 months post-procedure were evaluated. Results: A total of 91 patients (35 males) from six centers were included. The patients' mean BMI before the procedure was 38.7 kg/m2. BMI reduction at 3 months was 7.3 (p < 0.000), at 6 months 9.3 (p < 0.000), and at 12 months 8.6 (p < 0.000) from baseline. EBWL was 17.3% at 1 month (p < 0.000), 29.2% at 3 months (p < 0.000), and 35.6% at 6 months (p < 0.000). The mean procedure duration was 85.1 min. The mean length of hospital stay post-procedure was 27 h. Conclusion: ESG provides EBWL percentage sustained up to 12 months. These results are equivalent among the new ESG centers compared to previous studies by expert centers. Lay title: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in new bariatric endoscopy programs. Plain Language Summary: This article is the result of a collaborative international study on new endoscopic programs offering endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty.The minimally invasiveness and increasing accessibility of this technique makes it very attractive for patients with obesity while being poor candidate for surgery or refusing surgery.This study will also provide valuable information regarding this rising technique of endobariatric treatment.

Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy versus pyloromyotomy for gastroparesis: An international comparative study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastroparesis is a potentially debilitating gastric motility disorder with limited treatment options. Highest efficacy treatments include gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (GPOEM) and surgical pyloromyotomy. This study compares the efficacy and safety of GPOEM versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for refractory gastroparesis. METHODS: Patients who underwent GPOEM or laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for refractory gastroparesis from four centers across the USA and Latin America were included in a dedicated registry. Data collected included patient demographics, imaging, laboratory values, clinical success, gastroparesis cardinal symptom index, procedure time, pre-op and post-op gastric emptying times, adverse events, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were included (mean age 47; 32.4% male): GPOEM n = 39, surgical pyloromyotomy n = 63.Technical success was 100% in both groups. Clinical success was 92.3% in the GPOEM group and 82.5% in the surgery group (P = 0.164). The GPOEM group had a significantly higher post-op GSCI score reduction by 1.3 units (P < 0.00001), post-op retention reduction at 2 h by 18% (P < 0.00001), post-op retention reduction at 4 h by 25% (P < 0.00001) and a lower procedure time by 20 min (P < 0.00001) as compared with surgery. GPOEM also had a lower hospital length of stay by 2.8 days (P < 0.00001). Adverse events were significantly fewer in the GPOEM group (13%) compared with surgery group (33.3%; P = 0.021). Mean blood loss in the GPOEM group was only 3.6 mL compared with 866 mL in the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: The GPOEM may be a less invasive, safer, and more efficacious procedural treatment for refractory gastroparesis as compared with surgical pyloromyotomy.

How does per-oral endoscopic myotomy compare to Heller myotomy? The Latin American perspective.

Background and study aims Both Heller myotomy (HM) and per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are efficacious therapies for achalasia. The efficacy and safety of POEM vs HM in Latin America and specifically in patients with Chagas disease is unknown. Patients and methods Consecutive patients undergoing either HM or POEM for achalasia were included from nine Latin American centers in a prospective registry over 5 years. Technical success was defined as undergoing a successful myotomy. Clinical success was defined as achieving an Eckardt score < 3. Data on demographics, procedure info, Eckardt score, and adverse events (AEs) were collected. Student's t test, Chi squared, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results One hundred thirty-three patients were included (59 male; 44 %; mean age 47). POEM was performed in 69 patients, HM in 64 patients. A total of 35 patients had Chagas disease, 17 of 69 in the POEM group, 18 of 64 in the HM group. Both groups had significant reduction in Eckardt scores ( P  < 0.00001), but successful initial therapy was significantly higher in the POEM group compared to the HM group ( P  = 0.01304). AEs were similar in both group (17 % vs 14 %) and consisted of pneumothorax (n = 3 vs 2), bleeding requiring transfusion (n = 3 vs 2), and mediastinitis (n = 3 vs 1). Hospital stay was longer in the HM group than in the POEM group ( P  < 0.00001). In the Chagas subgroup, post-procedure Eckardt score in the POEM group was significantly reduced by 5.71 points ( P  < 0.00001) versus 1.56 points in the HM group ( P  = 0.042793). Conclusion Both HM and POEM are efficacious for achalasia, but POEM was associated with higher initial therapy success and shorter hospital stay in Latin America. In Chagas patients with achalasia, POEM was significantly more effective than HM.

POEM in Latin America: The Rise of a New Standard.

BACKGROUND: Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has become the preferred alternative treatment to standard Heller myotomy for patients with esophageal achalasia, in Latin American countries. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a POEM in the management of achalasia with and without Chagas disease in patients receiving POEM. METHODS: Patients who underwent POEM from tertiary centers in Latin America were included in a dedicated registry. Countries included Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Patients enrolled needed to have a preoperative manometry and swallow contrast study confirming achalasia. Clinical success was defined as significant improvement in Eckardt score after therapy. RESULTS: POEM was technically successful in 81/89 (91%) patients (mean age, 44 y). There was a significant decrease in preprocedure and postprocedure Eckardt score from 8.7 (range, 3 to 12) to 2.15 (0 to 10) (P<0.001), preprocedure and postprocedure barium swallow evaluation (98% vs. 89%; P=0.017), and preprocedure and postprocedure lower esophageal sphincter pressure measurement (from 35 to 13.8 mm Hg; P<0.001). Clinical success was achieved in 93% of patients. Patients with Chagas disease (n=58) were 9.5 times more likely to respond to POEM (P=0.0020; odds ratio, 9.5). CONCLUSIONS: POEM is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of achalasia in Latin America. Chagas disease-related achalasia seems to particularly respond better to POEM when it is performed by experienced endoscopists.