PDF herunterladen
Endoscopy 2005; 37(3): 217-222
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-860996
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Are Endoscopic Antireflux Therapies Cost-Effective Compared with Laparoscopic Fundoplication?

I.  Schiefke1 , C.  Rogalski2 , A.  Zabel-Langhennig1 , H.  Witzigmann3 , J.  Mössner1 , D.  Hasenclever2 , K.  Caca1
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine II, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
  • 2Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
  • 3Department of Surgery II, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Submitted 26 October 2003

Accepted after Revision 15 November 2003

Publikationsdatum:
24. Februar 2005 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Background and Study Aims: A number of endoscopic antireflux therapies (EATs) have emerged as potential nonmedical treatment options for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Concerns about clinical efficacy and costs have given rise to debate about their role in GERD management. The costs of laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) were compared with the costs of EAT when used in a sequential strategy that reserves the option of LF for EAT failure.
Methods: A simple mathematical criterion of direct medical costs was applied. Published articles concerning EAT were reviewed to assess its effectiveness, durability and costs, in order to estimate the parameters of the model. The costs of EAT and LF were evaluated from the perspective of a German third-party payer. Only direct medical costs were considered.
Results: Assuming that EAT has no impact on potential LF later on, the outcome of both strategies (LF, or EAT first with LF in case of failure of EAT) is identical and preference is a simple question of costs. The sequential strategy in nonmedical GERD treatment would be preferable if the long-term relief rate with EAT exceeds the ratio of the cost of EAT to the cost of LF. Long-term success rates of EAT do not exceed 0.65. At current prices EAT is clearly not cost-effective in Germany.
Conclusion: Our simple criterion indicates that EAT would only be cost-effective and beneficial in a sequential strategy if the costs of EAT were to be decreased to around 30 % of current retail prices. However, long-term studies and randomized controlled trials are necessary to finally determine the role of EAT in GERD treatment, and the preference may change in either direction.

References

  • 1 Dimenas E, Glise H, Hallerback B. et al . Quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. An improved evaluation of treatment regimens?.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1993;  28 681-687
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Locke G R, 3rd, Talley N J, Fett S L. et al . Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 1448-1456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Revicki D A, Sorensen S, Maton P N, Orlando R C. Health-related quality of life outcomes of omeprazole versus ranitidine in poorly responsive symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease.  Dig Dis. 1998;  16 284-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 el-Serag H B, Sonnenberg A. Opposing time trends of peptic ulcer and reflux disease.  Gut. 1998;  43 327-333
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kennedy T, Jones R. The prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms in a UK population and the consultation behaviour of patients with these symptoms.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;  14 1589-1594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Voutilainen M, Sipponen P, Mecklin J P. et al . Gastroesophageal reflux disease: prevalence, clinical, endoscopic and histopathological findings in 1,128 consecutive patients referred for endoscopy due to dyspeptic and reflux symptoms.  Digestion. 2000;  61 6-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lagergren J, Bergstrom R, Lindgren A, Nyren O. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma.  N Engl J Med. 1999;  340 825-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Klinkenberg-Knol E C, Festen H P, Jansen J B. et al . Long-term treatment with omeprazole for refractory reflux esophagitis: efficacy and safety.  Ann Intern Med. 1994;  121 161-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vigneri S, Termini R, Leandro G. et al . A comparison of five maintenance therapies for reflux esophagitis.  N Engl J Med. 1995;  333 1106-1110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Spechler S J, Lee E, Ahnen D. et al . Long-term outcome of medical and surgical therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2001;  285 2331-2338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lundell L. Laparoscopic fundoplication is the treatment of choice for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Protagonist.  Gut. 2002;  51 468-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hetzel D J, Dent J, Reed W D. et al . Healing and relapse of severe peptic esophagitis after treatment with omeprazole.  Gastroenterology. 1988;  95 903-912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 McDougall N I, Johnston B T, Kee F. et al . Natural history of reflux oesophagitis: a 10 year follow up of its effect on patient symptomatology and quality of life.  Gut. 1996;  38 481-486
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Donahue P E, Samelson S, Nyhus L M, Bombeck C T. The floppy Nissen fundoplication. Effective long-term control of pathologic reflux.  Arch Surg. 1985;  120 663-668
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 DeMeester T R, Bonavina L, Albertucci M. Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Evaluation of primary repair in 100 consecutive patients.  Ann Surg. 1986;  204 9-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Thor K B, Silander T. A long-term randomized prospective trial of the Nissen procedure versus a modified Toupet technique.  Ann Surg. 1989;  210 719-724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dallemagne B, Weerts J M, Jehaes C. et al . Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: preliminary report.  Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;  1 138-143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fuchs K H, Feussner H, Bonavina L. et al . Current status and trends in laparoscopic antireflux surgery: results of a consensus meeting. The European Study Group for Antireflux Surgery (ESGARS).  Endoscopy. 1997;  29 298-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lafullarde T, Watson D I, Jamieson G G. et al . Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: five-year results and beyond.  Arch Surg. 2001;  136 180-184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pelissier E P, Ottignon Y, Deschamps J P, Carayon P. Fundoplication avoiding complications of the Nissen procedure: prospective evaluation.  World J Surg. 1997;  21 611-616; discussion 616-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wetscher G J, Glaser K, Wieschemeyer T. et al . Tailored antireflux surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease: effectiveness and risk of postoperative dysphagia.  World J Surg. 1997;  21 605-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bais J E, Bartelsman J F, Bonjer H J. et al . Laparoscopic or conventional Nissen fundoplication for gastro- oesophageal reflux disease: randomised clinical trial. The Netherlands Antireflux Surgery Study Group.  Lancet. 2000;  355 70-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pessaux P, Arnaud J P, Ghavami B. et al . Morbidity of laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux: a retrospective study about 1470 patients.  Hepatogastroenterology. 2002;  49 447-450
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Van Den Boom G, Go P M, Hameeteman W. et al . Cost effectiveness of medical versus surgical treatment in patients with severe or refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease in the Netherlands.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1996;  31 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Swain C P, Brown G J, Gong F, Mills T N. An endoscopically deliverable tissue-transfixing device for securing biosensors in the gastrointestinal tract.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;  40 730-734
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Filipi C J, Lehman G A, Rothstein R I. et al . Transoral, flexible endoscopic suturing for treatment of GERD: a multicenter trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 416-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mahmood Z, McMahon B P, Arfin Q. et al . Endocinch therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a one year prospective follow up.  Gut. 2003;  52 34-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tam W C, Holloway R H, Dent J. et al . Impact of endoscopic suturing of the gastroesophageal junction on lower esophageal sphincter function and gastroesophageal reflux in patients with reflux disease.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;  99 195-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ponchon T, Boyer J, Grimaud J C. et al . A prospective multicenter phase II study to evaluate endocinch suturing system for the treatment of GERD.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 AB15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Triadafilopoulos G, Dibaise J K, Nostrant T T. et al . Radiofrequency energy delivery to the gastroesophageal junction for the treatment of GERD.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 407-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Triadafilopoulos G, DiBaise J K, Nostrant T T. et al . The Stretta procedure for the treatment of GERD: 6 and 12 month follow-up of the U.S. open label trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 149-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Corley D A, Katz P, Wo J M. et al . Improvement of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms after radiofrequency energy: a randomized, sham-controlled trial.  Gastroenterology. 2003;  125 668-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tam W C, Schoeman M N, Zhang Q. et al . Delivery of radiofrequency energy to the lower oesophageal sphincter and gastric cardia inhibits transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations and gastro-oesophageal reflux in patients with reflux disease.  Gut. 2003;  52 479-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mason R J, Hughes M, Lehman G A. et al . Endoscopic augmentation of the cardia with a biocompatible injectable polymer (Enteryx) in a porcine model.  Surg Endosc. 2002;  16 386-391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Deviere J, Pastorelli A, Louis H. et al . Endoscopic implantation of a biopolymer in the lower esophageal sphincter for gastroesophageal reflux: a pilot study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 335-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Johnson D A, Ganz R, Aisenberg J. et al . Endoscopic, deep mural implantation of Enteryx for the treatment of GERD: 6-month follow-up of a multicenter trial.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 250-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Johnson D A, Ganz R, Aisenberg J. et al . Endoscopic implantation of enteryx for treatment of GERD: 12-month results of a prospective, multicenter trial.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 1921-1930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Johansson J, Johnsson F, Joelsson B. et al . Outcome 5 years after 360 degree fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.  Br J Surg. 1993;  80 46-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Carlson M A, Frantzides C T. Complications and results of primary minimally invasive antireflux procedures: a review of 10,735 reported cases.  J Am Coll Surg. 2001;  193 428-439
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Flum D R, Koepsell T, Heagerty P, Pellegrini C A. The nationwide frequency of major adverse outcomes in antireflux surgery and the role of surgeon experience, 1992-1997.  J Am Coll Surg. 2002;  195 611-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Velanovich V, Ben Menachem T. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication after failed endoscopic gastroplication.  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002;  12 305-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 El Nakadi I, Closset J, De Moor V. et al . Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication after failure of Enteryx injection into the lower esophageal sphincter.  Surg Endosc. 2004;  18 818-820
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Mahmood Z, McMahon B, O"Morain C, Weir D G. Innovations in gastro-intestinal endoscopy: endoscopic antireflux therapies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.  Dig Dis. 2002;  20 182-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Harewood G C, Gostout C J. Cost analysis of endoscopic antireflux procedures: endoluminal plication vs. radiofrequency coagulation vs. treatment with a proton pump inhibitor.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 493-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

K. Caca, M. D.

Department of Medicine II, University of Leipzig

Philipp-Rosenthal-Straße 27 · 04103 Leipzig · Germany

Fax: + 49-341-9712239

eMail: caca@medizin.uni-leipzig.de