Efficacy and safety of antireflux mucosectomy versus radiofrequency ablation of the lower esophageal sphincter for the treatment of GERD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and aims: GERD affects 10% to 30% of the population. Endoscopic antireflux therapies have been proposed for carefully selected patients. In this study, we compared outcomes between endoscopic antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and endoscopic radiofrequency ablation of the lower esophageal sphincter (Stretta procedure) for the treatment of GERD.

Methods: A systematic review using the MEDLINE database was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after ARMS and Stretta procedures. The main outcomes were patient satisfaction, GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) scores, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and DeMeester scores. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural adverse events. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models was used to assess the effect of each endoscopic procedure on the different outcomes.

Results: Sixty-six studies comprising 3767 patients were included, with 3074 patients (81.60%) undergoing Stretta and 693 (18.40%) ARMS. The weighted pooled patient satisfaction rates were 65% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52-76) for ARMS and 77% (95% CI, 64-87) for Stretta. Both treatments significantly reduced PPI use (from 100% to 40.18% for ARMS vs from 99.42% to 48.51% for Stretta, P = .20) and improved GERD-HRQL scores (pre 19.75 to post 8.24 for ARMS vs pre 21.02 to post 10.45 for Stretta, P = .70). DeMeester scores improved similarly after both procedures (pre 44.99 to post 15.02 for ARMS vs pre 52.29 to post 28.99 for Stretta, P = .48). ARMS was associated with higher overall morbidity (25% vs 17%, P = .001) and greater risks of stricture (odds ratio [OR], 13.03; 95% CI, 7.83-21.71), bleeding (OR, 13.16; 95% CI, 8.60-20.15), and perforation (OR, 13.03; 95% CI, 7.82-21.71) compared with Stretta.

Conclusions: Both Stretta and ARMS are effective endoscopic treatment modalities for GERD. Although their clinical efficacy appears to be similar, the increased risk of dysphagia, bleeding, and perforation after ARMS should not be underestimated.