[Update on Endoscopic Therapies for the Treatment of GERD: GERDX, MUSE, EsophyX]. / Aktueller Stand bei den endoskopischen Therapieverfahren der GERD (Endoplikation): GERDX, MUSE, EsophyX.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been a problem for patients throughout in recent decades worldwide and its prevalence is increasing. Until 20 years ago, the established treatments were the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and varieties of laparoscopic fundoplication (LF). Increasing experience with endoscopy and knowledge of the oesophagogastric junction (EGJ) has led to new options in the treatment of GERD. However, promising short term effects have been found with radiofrequency ablation (RFA, Stretta device), endoscopic mucosal resection (ARMS) for induction of scar tissue at the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) and endoscopic suture devices like GERDX, MUSE and EsophyX to reconstruct the flap valve at the EGJ. Long-term follow-up data and randomised controlled studies in comparison to LF are still rare.

Perioperative chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiation for patients with adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus in Austria: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus (AEG type I) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients from four Austrian centers were selected to conduct a retrospective analysis. All patients treated between January 2007 and October 2017 with chemotherapy according to EOX-protocol (Epirubicin, Oxaliplatin, Xeloda) or chemoradiation according to CROSS-protocol (carboplatin/paclitaxel + RTX 41.4 Gy), before esophagectomy were included. Primary outcomes disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) as well as secondary outcomes downstaging of T- or N-stage and achievement of pathological complete response pCR (ypT0N0M0) were analyzed. Data of 119 patients were included. RESULTS: Complete data was available in 104 patients, 53 patients in the chemoradiation group and 51 patients in the chemotherapy group. The mean number of lymph nodes removed was significantly higher in the EOX group (EOX 29 ± 15.5 vs. CROSS 22 ± 8.8; p < 0.05). Median follow-up in the CROSS group was 17 months (CI 95% 8.8-25.2) and in the EOX group 37 months (CI 95% 26.5-47.5). In the chemotherapy group, the OS rate after half a year, - 1, and 3 years was 92%, 75%, and 51%. After chemoradiation, overall survival after half a year was 85 %, after 1 year 66%, and after 3 years 17%. In the EOX group DFS after ½, - 1, and 3 years was 90%, 73%, and 45%, in the chemoradiation group after half a year 81%, after 1 year 55% and after 3 years 15%. Pathological complete response (pCR) was achieved in 23% of patients after CROSS and in 10% after EOX (p < 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: There seem to be clear advantages for chemoradiation, concerning the major response of the primary tumor, whereas a tendency in favor for chemotherapy is seen in regards to systemic tumor control. Furthermore, the type of neoadjuvant treatment has a significant influence on the number of lymph nodes resected.

24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring may be an inadequate test for detecting gastroesophageal reflux in patients with mixed typical and atypical symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The detection of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) via pH testing is the key component of the evaluation of patients considered for antireflux surgery. Two common pH testing systems exist, a multichannel, intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH) catheter, and wireless (Bravo(®)) capsule; however, discrepancies between the two systems exist. In patients with atypical symptoms, MII-pH catheter is often used preferentially. We aimed to elucidate the magnitude of this discrepancy and to assess the diagnostic value of MII-pH and the Bravo wireless capsule in a population of patients with mixed respiratory and typical symptoms. METHODS: The study population consisted of 66 patients tested with MII-pH and Bravo pH testing within 90 days between July 2009 and 2013. All patients presented with laryngo-pharyngo-respiratory (LPR) symptoms. Patient demographics, symptomatology, manometric and endoscopic findings, and pH monitoring parameters were analyzed. Patients were divided into four comparison groups: both pH tests positive, MII-pH negative/Bravo positive, MII-pH positive/Bravo negative, and both pH tests negative. RESULTS: Nearly half of the patients (44%) had discordant pH test results. Of these, 90% (26/29) had a negative MII-pH but positive Bravo study. In this group, the difference in the DeMeester score was large, a median of 29.3. These patients had a higher BMI (28.5 vs. 26.1, p = 0.0357), were more likely to complain of heartburn (50 vs. 23%, p = 0.0110), to have a hiatal hernia, (85 vs. 53%, p = 0.0075) and a structurally defective lower esophageal sphincter (LES, 85 vs. 58%, p = 0.0208). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LPR symptoms, we found a high prevalence of discordant esophageal pH results, most commonly a negative MII-pH catheter and positive Bravo. As these patients exhibited characteristics consistent with GERD (heartburn, defective LES, hiatal hernia), the Bravo results are likely true. A 24-h MII-pH catheter study may be inadequate to diagnose GERD in this patient population.

Interim Report of a Prospective Trial on the Clinical Efficiency of a New Full-thickness Endoscopic Plication Device for Patients With GERD: Impact of Changed Suture Material.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present trial is to investigate the clinical efficiency of the GERDx device for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective study evaluating Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, symptoms scores, as well as esophageal manometry and impedance-pH-monitoring data at baseline and 3 months after endoscopic full-thickness plication with the GERDx device. RESULTS: In total, 28 patients underwent the procedure so far. Mean Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index scores, DeMeester scores, and general and reflux-specific scores improved (P<0.01). Three of 6 patients, who were treated with converted sutures, experienced postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic plication using the GERDx device may be effective in improving quality of life and GERD symptoms. Suture length between pledgets and suture material may have an impact on procedure outcomes.

Eliminating a need for esophagectomy: endoscopic treatment of Barrett esophagus with early esophageal neoplasia.

Over the past several years, endoscopic ablation and resection have become a new standard of care in the management of Barrett esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC). Risk factors for failure of endoscopic therapy and the need for subsequent esophagectomy have not been well elucidated. The aims of this study were to determine the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the management of BE with HGD or IMC, to discern factors predictive of endoscopic treatment failure, and to assess the effect of endoscopic therapies on esophagectomy volume at our institution. Data were obtained retrospectively for all patients who underwent endoscopic therapies or esophagectomy for a diagnosis of BE with HGD or IMC in our department between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2012. Complete remission (CR) of BE or HGD or IMC was defined as 2 consecutive biopsy sessions without BE or HGD or IMC and no subsequent recurrence. Recurrence was defined by the return of BE or HGD or IMC after initial remission. Progression was defined as worsening of HGD to IMC or worsening of IMC to submucosal neoplasia or beyond. Overall, 57 patients underwent RFA with or without EMR for BE with HGD (n = 45) or IMC (n = 12) between 2007 and 2012, with a median follow-up duration of 35.4 months (range: 18.5-52.0 months). The 57 patients underwent 181 ablation sessions and more than half (61%) of patients underwent EMR as a component of treatment. There were no major procedural complications or deaths, with only 2 minor complications including 1 symptomatic stricture requiring dilation. Multifocal HGD or IMC was present in 43% (25/57) of patients. CR of IMC was achieved in 100% (12/12) at a median of 6.1 months, CR of dysplasia was achieved in 79% (45/57) at a median of 11.5 months, and CR of BE was achieved in 49% (28/57) at a median of 18.4 months. Following initial remission, 28% of patients (16/57) had recurrence of dysplasia (n = 12) or BE (n = 4). Progression to IMC occurred in 7% (4/57). All patients without CR continue endoscopic treatment. No patient required esophagectomy or developed metastatic disease. Overall, 6 patients died during the follow-up interval, none from esophageal cancer. Factors associated with failure to achieve CR of BE included increasing length of BE (6.0 ± 0.6 vs 4.0 ± 0.6cm, P = 0.03) and shorter duration of follow-up (28.5 ± 3.8 months vs 49.0 ± 5.8 months, P = 0.004). Shorter surveillance duration (17.8 ± 7.6 months vs 63.9 ± 14.4 months, P = 0.009) and shorter follow-up (21.1 ± 6.1 months vs 43.2 ± 4.1 months) were the only significant factors associated with failure to eradicate dysplasia. Our use of esophagectomy as primary therapy for BE with HGD or IMC has diminished since we began using endoscopic therapies in 2007. From a maximum of 16 esophagectomies per year for early Barrett neoplasia in 2006, we performed only 3 esophageal resections for such early disease in 2012, all for IMC, and we have not performed an esophagectomy for HGD since 2008. Although recurrence of BE or dysplasia/IMC was not uncommon, RFA with or without EMR ultimately resulted in CR of IMC in all patients, CR of HGD in the majority (79%), and CR of BE in nearly half (49%). No patient treated endoscopically for HGD or IMC subsequently required esophagectomy. In patients with BE with HGD or IMC, RFA and EMR are safe and highly effective. The use of endoscopic therapies appears justified as the new standard of care in most cases of BE with early esophageal neoplasia.