Gastric per‐oral endoscopic myotomy versus pyloromyotomy for gastroparesis: An international comparative study. Issue 11 (14th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pioppo, Lauren; Reja, Debashis; Gaidhane, Monica; Bareket, Romy; Tawadros, Augustine; Madrigal Méndez, Ana L.; Nieto, Jose; Zamarripa, Felipe; Martínez, Ma Guadalupe; Carames, Mine C.; Carames, Juan C.; Liu‐Burdowski, Jennifer; Kim, Marina; Deshmukh, Ameya A.; Suresh, Supriya; Alkhiari, Resheed; Andalib, Iman; Shahid, Haroon M.; Sarkar, Avik; Tyberg, Amy; Kahaleh, Michel
• Is Part Of: Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. Volume 36:Issue 11(2021)
• Page Start: 3177
• Page End: 3182
• Publication Date: 2021-07-14
• Subjects: Gastroparesis -- myotomy -- Gastric Per‐Oral Endoscopic Myotomy -- Pyloromyotomy -- Endoscopy: upper GI; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Liver Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15599
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0815-9319

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Aim: Gastroparesis is a potentially debilitating gastric motility disorder with limited treatment options. Highest efficacy treatments include gastric per‐oral endoscopic myotomy (GPOEM) and surgical pyloromyotomy. This study compares the efficacy and safety of GPOEM versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for refractory gastroparesis. Methods: Patients who underwent GPOEM or laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for refractory gastroparesis from four centers across the USA and Latin America were included in a dedicated registry. Data collected included patient demographics, imaging, laboratory values, clinical success, gastroparesis cardinal symptom index, procedure time, pre‐op and post‐op gastric emptying times, adverse events, and hospital length of stay. Results: A total of 102 patients were included (mean age 47; 32.4% male): GPOEM n = 39, surgical pyloromyotomy n = 63.Technical success was 100% in both groups. Clinical success was 92.3% in the GPOEM group and 82.5% in the surgery group ( P = 0.164). The GPOEM group had a significantly higher post‐op GSCI score reduction by 1.3 units ( P < 0.00001), post‐op retention reduction at 2 h by 18% ( P < 0.00001), post‐op retention reduction at 4 h by 25% ( P < 0.00001) and a lower procedure time by 20 min ( P < 0.00001) as compared with surgery. GPOEM also had a lower hospital length of stay by 2.8 days ( P < 0.00001). Adverse events were significantly fewer in the GPOEM group (13%) compared with surgery group (33.3%; P = 0.021). Mean blood loss in the GPOEM group was only 3.6 mL compared with 866 mL in the surgery group. Conclusions: The GPOEM may be a less invasive, safer, and more efficacious procedural treatment for refractory gastroparesis as compared with surgical pyloromyotomy.