We have located open access text paper links.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy versus botulinum toxin injection for the treatment of refractory gastroparesis: results of a double-blind randomized controlled study.
Endoscopy 2024 May
INTRODUCTION: Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) is a promising technique for treating refractory gastroparesis. We present the first double-blind randomized study comparing the clinical efficacy of G-POEM versus pyloric botulinum toxin injection (BTI).
METHODS: This randomized study, conducted in two expert centers, enrolled patients with refractory gastroparesis, medically managed for >6 months and confirmed by gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES), into two groups, G-POEM versus BTI, with follow-up of 1 year. The primary end point was the 3-month clinical efficacy, defined as a >1-point decrease in the mean Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) score. Secondary end points were: 1-year efficacy, GES evolution, adverse events, and quality of life.
RESULTS: 40 patients (22 women; mean age 48.1 [SD 17.4]), with mean symptom duration of 5.8 (SD 5.7) years, were randomized. Etiologies included idiopathic (n=18), diabetes (n=11), postoperative (n=6), and mixed (n=4). G-POEM showed a higher 3-month clinical success than BTI (65% vs. 40%, respectively; P =0.10), along with non-significantly higher 1-year clinical success (60% vs. 40%, respectively) on intention-to-treat analysis. The GCSI decreased in both groups at 3 months and 1 year. Only three minor adverse events occurred in the G-POEM group. The GES improvement rate was 72% in the G-POEM group versus 50% in the BTI group (non-significant).
CONCLUSION: G-POEM seems to have a higher clinically relevant success rate than BTI, but this was not statistically demonstrated. This study confirms the interest in treatments targeting the pylorus, either mechanically or chemically, for managing refractory gastroparesis.
METHODS: This randomized study, conducted in two expert centers, enrolled patients with refractory gastroparesis, medically managed for >6 months and confirmed by gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES), into two groups, G-POEM versus BTI, with follow-up of 1 year. The primary end point was the 3-month clinical efficacy, defined as a >1-point decrease in the mean Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) score. Secondary end points were: 1-year efficacy, GES evolution, adverse events, and quality of life.
RESULTS: 40 patients (22 women; mean age 48.1 [SD 17.4]), with mean symptom duration of 5.8 (SD 5.7) years, were randomized. Etiologies included idiopathic (n=18), diabetes (n=11), postoperative (n=6), and mixed (n=4). G-POEM showed a higher 3-month clinical success than BTI (65% vs. 40%, respectively; P =0.10), along with non-significantly higher 1-year clinical success (60% vs. 40%, respectively) on intention-to-treat analysis. The GCSI decreased in both groups at 3 months and 1 year. Only three minor adverse events occurred in the G-POEM group. The GES improvement rate was 72% in the G-POEM group versus 50% in the BTI group (non-significant).
CONCLUSION: G-POEM seems to have a higher clinically relevant success rate than BTI, but this was not statistically demonstrated. This study confirms the interest in treatments targeting the pylorus, either mechanically or chemically, for managing refractory gastroparesis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app