PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2019; 07(03): E322-E329
DOI: 10.1055/a-0812-1458
Review
Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019

Efficacy and feasibility of G-POEM in management of patients with refractory gastroparesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mohamad Aghaie Meybodi
1   Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Bashar J. Qumseya
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Archbold Medical Group/Florida State University, United States
,
Delaram Shakoor
3   Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Katie Lobner
4   Welch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Kia Vosoughi
5   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Yervant Ichkhanian
5   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Mouen A. Khashab
5   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

submitted 05. Juni 2018

accepted after revision 29. Oktober 2018

Publikationsdatum:
28. Februar 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and aim Clinical management of patients with gastroparesis is challenging. Prior pyloric targeted procedures are either invasive or have questionable long-term efficacy. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) has been recently introduced as a minimally invasive approach. In this review, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of this technique in the management of patients with refractory gastroparesis.

Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies published through May 2018. Weighted pool rates (WPR) of the clinical resolution were calculated. Pooled values of Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) before and after the procedure were compared. Pooled difference in means comparing gastric emptying before and after the procedure was calculated. Fixed or random effect model was used according to the level of heterogeneity.

Results Seven studies with 196 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean value of procedure duration was 69.7 (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 39 – 99 minutes) and average estimate of hospital stay was 1.96 (95 % CI: 1.22 – 2.95) days. The WPR for clinical success was 82 % (95 % CI: 74 % – 87 %, I2 = 0). Compared with pre-procedure GCSI values, mean values of GCSI were reduced significantly at 5 days (–1.57 (95 % CI:–2.2,-0.9), I2 = 80 %) (P < 0.001). Mean values of gastric emptying were significantly decreased 2 – 3 months after the procedure (–22.3 (95 %CI: –32.9, – 11.6), I2 = 67 %) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion Due to the high rate of clinical success and low rate of adverse events, G-POEM should be considered in management of refractory gastroparesis.

 

  • References

  • 1 Parkman HP, Hasler WL, Fisher RS. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the diagnosis and treatment of gastroparesis. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1592-1622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Camilleri M, Parkman HP, Shafi MA. et al. Clinical guideline: management of gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 18-37 ; quiz 38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hasler WL. Gastroparesis: pathogenesis, diagnosis and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 8: 438-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wang YR, Fisher RS, Parkman HP. Gastroparesis-related hospitalizations in the United States: trends, characteristics, and outcomes, 1995-2004. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 313-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sangnes DA, Søfteland E, Biermann M. et al. Gastroparesis-causes, diagnosis and treatment. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2016; 136: 822-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jones MP, Maganti K. A systematic review of surgical therapy for gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2122-2129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ahuja NK, Clarke JO. Pyloric therapies for gastroparesis. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2017; 15: 230-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Coleski R, Anderson MA, Hasler WL. Factors associated with symptom response to pyloric injection of botulinum toxin in a large series of gastroparesis patients. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54: 2634-2642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Awaiz A, Yunus RM, Khan S. et al. Systematic review and meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic heller myotomy (LHM) for achalasia. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2017; 27: 123-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Khashab MA, Stein E, Clarke JO. et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: first human endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 764-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dacha S, Mekaroonkamol P, Li L. et al. Outcomes and quality-of-life assessment after gastric per-oral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2017; 86: 282-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gonzalez J-M, Lestelle V, Benezech A. et al. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy with antropyloromyotomy in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis: clinical experience with follow-up and scintigraphic evaluation (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 132-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gonzalez J, Benezech A, Vitton V. et al. G‐POEM with antro‐pyloromyotomy for the treatment of refractory gastroparesis: mid‐term follow‐up and factors predicting outcome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017; 46: 364-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Khashab MA, Ngamruengphong S, Carr-Locke D. et al. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: results from the first multicenter study on endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 123-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Malik Z, Kataria R, Modayil R. et al. Gastric Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (G-POEM) for the treatment of refractory gastroparesis: early experience. Dig Dis Sci 2018; 63: 2405-2412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rodriguez JH, Haskins IN, Strong AT. et al. Per oral endoscopic pyloromyotomy for refractory gastroparesis: initial results from a single institution. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 5381-5388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shlomovitz E, Pescarus R, Cassera MA. et al. Early human experience with per-oral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (POP). Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 543-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies with No Control Group. National Institutes of Health Web site. 2014 https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mekaroonkamol P, Dacha S, Wang L. et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy reduces symptoms, increases quality of life, and reduces healthcare usage for patients with gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.016.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS. Statistical methods in medical research. John Wiley & Sons; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 24 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Waseem S, Moshiree B, Draganov PV. Gastroparesis: current diagnostic challenges and management considerations. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 25-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sarosiek I, Davis B, Eichler E. et al. Surgical approaches to treatment of gastroparesis: gastric electrical stimulation, pyloroplasty, total gastrectomy and enteral feeding tubes. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2015; 44: 151-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Navas CM, Patel NK, Lacy BE. Gastroparesis: medical and therapeutic advances. Dig Dis Sci 2017; 62: 2231-2240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Abell T, McCallum R, Hocking M. et al. Gastric electrical stimulation for medically refractory gastroparesis. Gastroenterology 2003; 125: 421-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Khashab MA, Ngamruengphong S, Carr-Locke D. et al. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: results from the first multicenter study on endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 123-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Arts J, Holvoet L, Caenepeel P. et al. Clinical trial: a randomized‐controlled crossover study of intrapyloric injection of botulinum toxin in gastroparesis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 26: 1251-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Friedenberg FK, Palit A, Parkman HP. et al. Botulinum toxin A for the treatment of delayed gastric emptying. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Khashab MA, Besharati S, Ngamruengphong S. et al. Refractory gastroparesis can be successfully managed with endoscopic transpyloric stent placement and fixation (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 1106-1109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar