Electrical stimulation therapy of the lower esophageal sphincter is successful in treating GERD: long-term 3-year results

Leonardo Rodríguez, Patricia A Rodriguez, Beatrice Gómez, Manoel Galvao Netto, Michael D Crowell, Edy Soffer, Leonardo Rodríguez, Patricia A Rodriguez, Beatrice Gómez, Manoel Galvao Netto, Michael D Crowell, Edy Soffer

Abstract

Background: Electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) at 2 years. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LES stimulation in the same cohort at 3 years.

Methods: GERD patients with partial response to PPI, with % 24-h esophageal pH < 4.0 for >5 %, with hiatal hernia <3 cm and with esophagitis ≤LA grade C were treated with LES stimulation in an open-label 2-year trial. All patients were on fixed stimulation parameter of 20 Hz, 220 μs, 5 mA delivered in twelve, 30-min sessions. After completing the 2-year open-label study, they were offered enrollment into a multicenter registry trial and were evaluated using GERD-HRQL, symptom diaries and pH testing at their 3-year follow-up.

Results: Fifteen patients completed their 3-year evaluation [mean (SD) age = 56.1 (9.7) years; men = 8] on LES stimulation. At 3 years, there was a significant improvement in their median (IQR) GERD-HRQL on electrical stimulation compared to both their on PPI [9 (6-10) vs. 1 (0-2), p = 0.001] and off PPI [22 (21-24) vs. 1 (0-2), p < 0.001]. Median 24-h distal esophageal acid exposure was significantly reduced from [10.3 (7.5-11.6) % at baseline vs. 3 (1.9-4.5) %, p < 0.001] at 3 years. Seventy-three % (11/15) patients had normalized their distal esophageal acid exposure at 3 years. Remaining four patients had improved their distal esophageal acid exposure by 39-48 % from baseline. All but four patients reported cessation of regular PPI use (>50 % of days with PPI use); three had normal esophageal pH at 3 years. There were no unanticipated device- or stimulation-related adverse events or untoward sensation reported during the 2- to 3-year follow-up.

Conclusion: LES-EST is safe and effective for treating patients with GERD over long-term, 3-year duration. There was a significant and sustained improvement in esophageal acid exposure and reduction in GERD symptoms and PPI use. Further, no new GI side effects or adverse events were reported.

Keywords: Electrical stimulation; Esophageal acid; GERD; Lower esophageal sphincter; Outcomes; Treatment.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
LES stimulation system with electrodes implanted in the LES and the pulse generator implanted in a subcutaneous pocket in the anterior abdominal wall
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Patient follow-up chart
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Sustained improvement in the distal esophageal acid exposure on LES stimulation at 3-year follow-up. Data: median, IQR. 73 % reported normalization (

Fig. 4

Effect of blinded turn-off and…

Fig. 4

Effect of blinded turn-off and turn-on on esophageal acid exposure. Esophageal acid exposure…

Fig. 4
Effect of blinded turn-off and turn-on on esophageal acid exposure. Esophageal acid exposure increased on blinded turn-off before the 2-year pH study and then improved after blinded turn-on at 2 years, as measured at their 3-year follow-up. EST electrical stimulation therapy

Fig. 5

Sustained improvement in GERD symptoms…

Fig. 5

Sustained improvement in GERD symptoms as measured by the composite GERD-HRQL scores at…

Fig. 5
Sustained improvement in GERD symptoms as measured by the composite GERD-HRQL scores at 3-year follow-up. Data: median, IQR. All patients reported clinically significant improvement (≥50 % improvement in the composite GERD-HRQL score) in symptoms at 3 years compared to baseline off PPI and better composite GERD-HRQL scores than baseline on PPI

Fig. 6

PPI medication use at baseline…

Fig. 6

PPI medication use at baseline and at 3-year follow-up. Most patients (73 %)…

Fig. 6
PPI medication use at baseline and at 3-year follow-up. Most patients (73 %) were free from PPI dependence (dependence defined as ≥50 % diary days with PPI use)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Effect of blinded turn-off and turn-on on esophageal acid exposure. Esophageal acid exposure increased on blinded turn-off before the 2-year pH study and then improved after blinded turn-on at 2 years, as measured at their 3-year follow-up. EST electrical stimulation therapy
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Sustained improvement in GERD symptoms as measured by the composite GERD-HRQL scores at 3-year follow-up. Data: median, IQR. All patients reported clinically significant improvement (≥50 % improvement in the composite GERD-HRQL score) in symptoms at 3 years compared to baseline off PPI and better composite GERD-HRQL scores than baseline on PPI
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
PPI medication use at baseline and at 3-year follow-up. Most patients (73 %) were free from PPI dependence (dependence defined as ≥50 % diary days with PPI use)

References

    1. El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, Dent J. Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut. 2014;63:871–880. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.
    1. Wiklund I. Review of the quality of life and burden of illness in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis. 2004;22:108–114. doi: 10.1159/000080308.
    1. Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, Nyrén O. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:825–831. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199903183401101.
    1. Jamieson JR, Stein HJ, DeMeester TR, Bonavina L, Schwizer W, Hinder RA, Albertucci M. Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87:1102–1111.
    1. Fass R, Shapiro M, Dekel R, Sewell J. Systematic review: proton-pump inhibitor failure in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease–where next? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:79–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02531.x.
    1. Richter JE. Gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: side effects and complications of fundoplication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:465–471. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.12.006.
    1. Spechler SJ, Lee E, Ahnen D, Goyal RK, Hirano I, Ramirez F, Raufman JP, Sampliner R, Schnell T, Sontag S, Vlahcevic ZR, Young R, Williford W. Long-term outcome of medical and surgical therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285:2331–2338. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.18.2331.
    1. Vakil N, Shaw M, Kirby R. Clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic fundoplication in a US community. Am J Med. 2003;114:1–5. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01390-6.
    1. Thibault R, Coron E, Sébille V, Sacher-Huvelin S, Bruley des Varannes S, Gournay J, Galmiche JP. Antireflux surgery for non-erosive and erosive reflux disease in community practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:621–632. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03024.x.
    1. Wang YR, Dempsey DT, Richter JE. Trends and perioperative outcomes of inpatient antireflux surgery in the United States, 1993–2006. Dis Esophagus. 2011;24:215–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2010.01123.x.
    1. Kahrilas PJ. Magnetic enhancement of the lower esophageal sphincter. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:295–296. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.08.032.
    1. Rodríguez L, Rodriguez P, Gómez B, Ayala JC, Oxenberg D, Perez-Castilla A, Netto MG, Soffer E, Boscardin WJ, Crowell MD. Two-year results of intermittent electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surgery. 2015;157:556–567. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.10.012.
    1. Rodrıguez L, Rodriguez P, G omez B, Ayala JC, Oksenberg D, Perez-Castilla A, et al. Long-term results of electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Endoscopy. 2013;45:595–604. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1344213.
    1. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Kohn GP, et al. Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2647–2669. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1267-8.
    1. Katzka DA, Paoletti V, Leite L, Castell DO. Prolonged ambulatory pH monitoring in patients with persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms: testing while on therapy identifies the need for more aggressive anti-reflux therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91:2110–2113.
    1. Charbel S, Khandwala F, Vaezi MF. The role of esophageal pH monitoring in symptomatic patients on PPI therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:283–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41210.x.
    1. Milkes D, Gerson LB, Triadafilopoulos G. Complete elimination of reflux symptoms does not guarantee normalization of intraesophageal and intragastric pH in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:991–996. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30124.x.
    1. Shah NH, LePendu P, Bauer-Mehren A, Ghebremariam YT, Iyer SV, Marcus J, Nead KT, Cooke JP, Leeper NJ. Proton pump inhibitor usage and the risk of myocardial infarction in the general population. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124653.
    1. Yang YX, Lewis JD, Epstein S, Metz DC. Long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy and risk of hip fracture. JAMA. 2006;296:2947–2953. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.24.2947.
    1. Kappelle WFW, Bredenoord AJ, Conchillo JM, et al. Electrical stimulation therapy of the lower esophageal sphincter for refractory gastro-esophageal reflux disease—interim results of an international multicenter trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;42:614–625. doi: 10.1111/apt.13306.
    1. Rothstein RI. Endoscopic therapy of gastroesophageal reflux disease outcomes of the randomized-controlled trials done to date. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:594–602. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31816bcde5.
    1. Attwood SE. Electrical stimulation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: formal randomized clinical trials are needed. Surgery. 2015;157:568–569. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.11.007.
    1. DeMeester TR (2015) Letter to the editor regarding the article: two-year results of intermittent electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surgery. 2015 April 22. pii: S0039-6060(15)00197-X. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.011. [Epub ahead of print]

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren