Published online Feb 6, 2016. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v7.i1.145
Peer-review started: July 30, 2015
First decision: September 14, 2015
Revised: October 9, 2015
Accepted: December 3, 2015
Article in press: December 4, 2015
Published online: February 6, 2016
Processing time: 192 Days and 0.9 Hours
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of lower esophageal sphincter (LES)-electrical stimulation therapy (EST) in a subgroup of patients that reported only partial response to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy, compared to a group of patient with complete response.
METHODS: Bipolar stitch electrodes were laparoscopically placed in the LES and connected to an implantable pulse generator (EndoStim BV, the Hague, the Netherlands), placed subcutaneously in the anterior abdominal wall. Stimulation at 20 Hz, 215 μsec, 3-8 mAmp in 30 min sessions was delivered starting on day 1 post-implant. Patients were evaluated using gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-HRQL, symptom diaries; esophageal pH and esophageal manometry before and up to 24 mo after therapy and results were compared between partial and complete responders.
RESULTS: Twenty-three patients with GERD on LES-EST were enrolled and received continuous per-protocol stimulation through 12 mo and 21 patients completed 24 mo of therapy. Of the 23 patients, 16 (8 male, mean age 52.1 ± 12 years) had incomplete response to PPIs prior to LES-EST, while 7 patients (5 male, mean age 52.7 ± 4.7) had complete response to PPIs. In the sub-group with incomplete response to PPIs, median (IQR) composite GERD-HRQL score improved significantly from 9.5 (9.0-10.0) at baseline on-PPI and 24.0 (20.8-26.3) at baseline off-PPI to 2.5 (0.0-4.0) at 12-mo and 0.0 (0.0-2.5) at 24-mo follow-up (P < 0.05 compared to on-and off-PPI at baseline). Median (IQR) % 24-h esophageal pH < 4.0 at baseline in this sub-group improved significantly from 9.8% (7.8-11.5) at baseline to 3.0% (1.9-6.3) at 12 mo (P < 0.001) and 4.6% (2.0-5.8) at 24 mo follow-up (P < 0.01). At their 24-mo follow-up, 9/11 patients in this sub-group were completely free of PPI use. These results were comparable to the sub-group that reported complete response to PPI therapy at baseline. No unanticipated implantation or stimulation-related adverse events, or any untoward sensation due to stimulation were reported in either group and LES-EST was safely tolerated by both groups.
CONCLUSION: LES-EST is safe and effective in controlling symptoms and esophageal acid exposure in GERD patients with incomplete response to PPIs. These results were comparable to those observed PPI responders.
Core tip: Proton pump Inhibitors (PPI) are the main medical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, 30%-40% of patients are unsatisfied with PPI therapy. Traditional antireflux surgery is effective but is associated with adverse effects and its numbers are declining, resulting in an unmet need for alternative therapies. Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) of the LES has been shown to significantly improve GERD symptoms and esophageal acid exposure in patients with GERD. The current study shows that patients who respond to PPI but are concerned about the drugs, as well as those with incomplete response to PPI respond equally to EST of the LES.