Management of Patients After Failed Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: A Multi-Center Study
Recommended Citation
Ichkhanian Y, Veracruz N, Al-Haddad M, Albunni H, Schlachterman A, Gouda Z, Canakis A, Kim R, D'Souza L, Khashab M, Nimri F, Ashraf T, Faisal MS, Jomaa D, Dababneh Y, Rehman S, Rizwan A, Singla S, Alsheik E, Ginnebaugh B, McFarlin K, Piraka C, Zuchelli T. Management of Patients After Failed Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: A Multi-Center Study. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118(10):S1410-S1411.
Document Type
Conference Proceeding
Publication Date
10-25-2023
Publication Title
Am J Gastroenterol
Abstract
Introduction: The heterogeneous and unpredictable clinical outcomes of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) in patients with refractory gastroparesis is a fundamental shortcoming of the procedure. The optimal management of patients who fail G-POEM is not known. We aimed to compare the outcomes of different management strategies in patients who had failed G-POEM. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study at 7 tertiary centers between 02/2020 and 10/2022. All patients who underwent G-POEM and experienced persistent (primary) or recurrent (secondary) symptoms were labeled as clinical failure and were included. Primary outcome was clinical success post re-treatment, defined as a 1-score decrease in average Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) with a ≥ 25% decrease in at least 2 sub-scales post-G-POEM. Results: A total of 233 patients [mean age 47.8 ± 15.6, F 170 (73%)] underwent G-POEM for the management of refractory gastroparesis at 7 U.S. tertiary care centers, and 92 (39%) patients experienced clinical failure with a median GCSI score of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-3.3). The majority, 86 (93%), were primary clinical failures. Post-G-POEM GES was performed in 35 (38%) [abnormal in 14 (40%)], and diagnostic upper endoscopy in 57 (62%) [endoscopic findings suggestive of gastroparesis 35 (83%)]. During the duration of the study, a total of 25 (27%) underwent re-treatment, while 67 (73%) underwent pharmacologic and/or palliative symptomatic treatment (Table 1). Among the patients who underwent re-treatment, clinical success was achieved in 12 (46%) of the patients during a median duration follow-up of 9.4 (IQR 6-13) months, with a decrease in the median GCSI score from 2.8 ± 1.6 to 1.5 ± 1.8, (P = 0.024). A total of 9 patients in the re-treatment group underwent both pre- and post-retreatment GES with an improvement in gastric retention at 4 hrs. from 38 ± 20.83 % to 23 ± 19.7 %, (P = 0.124). The highest clinical success was achieved among patients with GNS, 5 (83%), followed by repeat G-POEM, 4 (67%) (Figure 1). Having abnormal GES post-G-POEM was found to be the only independent predicting factor (OR 1.6, P = 0.031) for clinical success post-re-treatment. Concomitant gastrointestinal pathologies were noted in 6 (6.5%) (esophageal dysmotility treatment 2, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction 1, candida esophagitis 3). Conclusion: In our cohort, 46% of patients with clinical failure post-G-POEM had clinical success after re-treatment, with abnormal GES post-failed G-POEM being a predictor of clinical response.
Volume
118
Issue
10
First Page
S1410
Last Page
S1411