THE EFFICACY OF THE DIFFERENT ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENTS VERSUS SHAM, PHARMACOLOGIC OR SURGICAL METHODS FOR CHRONIC GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

A eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos versus métodos sham, farmacológicos ou cirúrgicos para o refluxo gastroesofágico crônico: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Endoscopic antireflux treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are still evolving, and most of the published studies address symptom relief in the short-term. Objective - We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on evaluating the efficacy of the different endoscopic procedures.

METHODS:

Search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO, and EMBASE for patients with chronic GERD (>6 months), over 18 years old and available follow up of at least 3 months. The main outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments compared to sham, pharmacological or surgical treatment. Efficacy was measured by different subjective and objective outcomes.

RESULTS:

We analyzed data from 16 RCT, totaling 1085 patients. The efficacy of endoscopic treatments compared to sham and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment showed a significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy with no heterogeneity (P<0.00001) (I²: 0%). The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy: endoscopy vs PPI (P<0.00001) (I²: 39%). Endoscopy vs sham (P<0.00001) (I²: 0%). Most subjective and objective outcomes were statistically significant in favor of endoscopy up to 6 and 12 months follow up.

CONCLUSION:

This systematic review and meta-analysis shows a good short-term efficacy in favor of endoscopic procedures when comparing them to a sham and pharmacological or surgical treatment. Data on long-term follow up is lacking and this should be explored in future studies.

HEADINGS:
Gastroesophageal reflux, therapy; Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Follow-Up Studies; Review