内镜下抗反流黏膜切除术与热能射频治疗难治性胃食管反流病的临床疗效对比：一项单中心随机试验

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8765.2023.03.004

目的

比较抗反流黏膜切除术（ARMS）和热能射频消融（RF）治疗难治性胃食管反流病（RGERD）的临床疗效。

方法

本研究为单中心的随机对照研究，研究对象为2018年4月至2019年7月在南京医科大学第一附属医院消化科就诊的RGERD患者。将RGERD患者1∶1随机分为ARMS组和RF组，在术前和术后2年对患者进行GERD问卷（GERD-Q）和反流性疾病问卷（RDQ）评分，主要结局指标为术后2年GERD-Q及RDQ评分，次要结局指标为术后2年质子泵抑制剂（PPI）停用率和患者满意率。

结果

本研究共纳入分析34例患者（ARMS组18例，RF组16例），2组患者的手术操作成功率均为100%。与RF组相比，ARMS组患者住院时间更长[（7.50±1.76）比（6.06±2.24）d，P = 0.044]，术后吞咽困难发生率更高（27.78%比0%，P = 0.046）。术后2年，2组患者间GERD-Q和RDQ评分无统计学差异[（9.56±7.16）比（8.06±6.64）分，（10.00±6.00）比（9.81±4.71）分; P均>0.05]。ARMS与RF组患者间PPI停用率和患者满意率无统计学差异[（61.11%比68.75%，61.11%比62.50%; P均>0.05]。

结论

内镜下ARMS 与射频消融治疗RGERD的临床疗效相当，疗效可维持至少2年，ARMS在RGERD治疗上具有应用前景。

关键词: 射频消融术, 抗反流黏膜切除术, 难治性胃食管反流病

Objective

To compare the efficacy of Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and radiofrequency (RF) energy delivery in gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD).

Methods

Patients with refractory GERD (RGERD) were 1:1 randomly assigned to either ARMS group or RF group. GERD questionnaire (GERD-Q) and reflux disease questionnaire (RDQ) were performed before and 2 years after the procedures. Primary outcome was the scores of GERD-Q and RDQ at 2 years postoperatively. The Secondary outcomes were proportions of patients who completely stopped proton pump inhibitor(PPI)use and who were satisfied with the treatment postoperatively.

Results

Thirty-four patients were analyzed, with 18 in ARMS group and 16 in RF group. In both groups, the operation success rate was 100%. Compared to RF group, the length of stay in ARMS group was significantly longer [(7.50±1.76) vs (6.06±2.24) d, P=0.044], and the incidence rate of dysphagia was higher (27.78% vs 0%, P=0.046). At 2 years postoperatively, the scores of GERD-Q and RDQ did not differ between the two groups [(9.56±7.16) vs (8.06±6.64) points, (10.00±6.00) vs (9.81±4.71) points; P all >0.05]. The PPIs cessation and patient satisfaction rates did not differ between ARMS and RF group (61.11% vs 68.75%, 61.11% vs 62.50%; P all>0.05).

Conclusion

The clinical efficacy of ARMS and RF for RGERD is equivalent. ARMS, the efficacy of which could be maintained for at least 2 years, is a promising endoscopic management for RGERD.

Key words: Radiofrequency energy delivery, Anti-reflux mucosectomy, Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

表1 ARMS组和RF组患者的人口学数据、术前胃镜及24 h阻抗-pH监测参数比较

项目	ARMS组（18例）	RF组（16例）	统计值	P值
年龄（岁，）	59.39±14.05	54.31±13.05	t =1.087	0.285
性别（例，男性/女性）	10/8	11/5	χ² =0.624	0.429
BMI（kg/m²，）	23.97±2.97	22.22±2.48	t =1.861	0.072
GERD病程 [年，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	5.5 (2.8, 12.5)	4.0 (2.0, 9.5)	Z =-0.832	0.405
食管裂孔疝 [例（%）]	6 (33.33)	3 (18.75)	-	0.448
洛杉矶分型A或B [例（%）]	18 (100.00)	14 (87.50)	-	0.214
巴雷特食管 [例（%）]	0 (0.00)	1 (6.25)	-	0.471
萎缩性胃炎 [例（%）]	2 (11.11)	0 (0.00)	-	0.487
阻抗-pH监测 [M(Q₁，Q₃)]
DeMeester评分[分，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	31.7 (22.0, 66.7)	27.0 (19.7, 44.4)	Z =-0.898	0.369
反流事件[次，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	88.0 (77.5, 186.8)	125.0 (68.0, 160.0)	Z =-0.024	0.981
酸暴露时间[%，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	8.6 (6.4, 18.3)	6.3 (3.7, 12.7)	Z =-1.336	0.182
长反流时间[%，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	5.0 (2.8, 12.8)	2.0 (0.0, 9.5)	Z =-1.689	0.091

表1 ARMS组和RF组患者的人口学数据、术前胃镜及24 h阻抗-pH监测参数比较

项目	ARMS组（18例）	RF组（16例）	统计值	P值
年龄（岁，）	59.39±14.05	54.31±13.05	t =1.087	0.285
性别（例，男性/女性）	10/8	11/5	χ² =0.624	0.429
BMI（kg/m²，）	23.97±2.97	22.22±2.48	t =1.861	0.072
GERD病程 [年，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	5.5 (2.8, 12.5)	4.0 (2.0, 9.5)	Z =-0.832	0.405
食管裂孔疝 [例（%）]	6 (33.33)	3 (18.75)	-	0.448
洛杉矶分型A或B [例（%）]	18 (100.00)	14 (87.50)	-	0.214
巴雷特食管 [例（%）]	0 (0.00)	1 (6.25)	-	0.471
萎缩性胃炎 [例（%）]	2 (11.11)	0 (0.00)	-	0.487
阻抗-pH监测 [M(Q₁，Q₃)]
DeMeester评分[分，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	31.7 (22.0, 66.7)	27.0 (19.7, 44.4)	Z =-0.898	0.369
反流事件[次，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	88.0 (77.5, 186.8)	125.0 (68.0, 160.0)	Z =-0.024	0.981
酸暴露时间[%，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	8.6 (6.4, 18.3)	6.3 (3.7, 12.7)	Z =-1.336	0.182
长反流时间[%，M(Q₁，Q₃)]	5.0 (2.8, 12.8)	2.0 (0.0, 9.5)	Z =-1.689	0.091

表2 ARMS组和RF组患者围手术期指标比较

组别	例数	住院时间（d，）	术后腹痛 [例（%）]	术后腹胀 [例（%）]	术后吞咽困难 [例（%）]	严重不良事件 [例（%）]	术后需食管扩张 [例（%）]	术后需外科手术 [例（%）]
ARMS组	18	7.50±1.76	9 (50.00)	2 (11.11)	5 (27.78)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
RF组	16	6.06±2.24	5 (31.25)	1 (6.25)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
统计值		t =2.096	χ² =1.229	χ²=0.249	-	-	-	-
P值		0.044	0.315	0.999	0.046	-	-	-

表2 ARMS组和RF组患者围手术期指标比较

组别	例数	住院时间（d，）	术后腹痛 [例（%）]	术后腹胀 [例（%）]	术后吞咽困难 [例（%）]	严重不良事件 [例（%）]	术后需食管扩张 [例（%）]	术后需外科手术 [例（%）]
ARMS组	18	7.50±1.76	9 (50.00)	2 (11.11)	5 (27.78)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
RF组	16	6.06±2.24	5 (31.25)	1 (6.25)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
统计值		t =2.096	χ² =1.229	χ²=0.249	-	-	-	-
P值		0.044	0.315	0.999	0.046	-	-	-

表3 ARMS组和RF组患者术后症状评分比较

组别	例数	RDQ（分，）		GERDQ（分，）
组别	例数	术前	术后	术前	术后
ARMS	18	18.44±5.53	9.56±7.16^a	13.44±2.15	10.00±6.00^a
RF	16	18.88±3.91	8.06±6.64 ^a	12.75±1.98	9.81±4.71 ^a
t值		0.628		0.100
P值		0.535		0.921

表3 ARMS组和RF组患者术后症状评分比较

组别	例数	RDQ（分，）		GERDQ（分，）
组别	例数	术前	术后	术前	术后
ARMS	18	18.44±5.53	9.56±7.16^a	13.44±2.15	10.00±6.00^a
RF	16	18.88±3.91	8.06±6.64 ^a	12.75±1.98	9.81±4.71 ^a
t值		0.628		0.100
P值		0.535		0.921

1	Fock KM, Talley N, Goh KL, et al. Asia-Pacific consensus on the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: an update focusing on refractory reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus[J]. Gut, 2016,65(9):1402-1415.
2	Inoue H, Ito H, Ikeda H, et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the absence of hiatus hernia: a pilot study[J]. Ann Gastroenterol, 2014,27(4):346-351.
3	Gordon D. New endoscopic strategies offer middle ground for treating GERD[J]. Gastroenterology, 2000,119(3):611.
4	Patil G, Dalal A, Maydeo A. Feasibility and outcomes of anti-reflux mucosectomy for proton pump inhibitor dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease: first indian study (with video)[J]. Dig Endosc, 2020,32(5):745-752.
5	Triadafilopoulos G, Dibaise JK, Nostrant TT, et al. Radiofrequency energy delivery to the gastroesophageal junction for the treatment of GERD[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2001,53(4):407-415.
6	Yoo IK, Ko WJ, Kim HS, et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy using a cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection method for refractory gastroesophageal disease: a prospective feasibility study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2020,34(3):1124-1131.
7	Liu PP, Meng QQ, Lin H, et al. Radiofrequency ablation is safe and effective in the treatment of Chinese patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a single-center prospective study[J]. J Dig Dis, 2019,20(5):229-234.
8	Arts J, Bisschops R, Blondeau K, et al. A double-blind sham-controlled study of the effect of radiofrequency energy on symptoms and distensibility of the gastro-esophageal junction in GERD[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2012,107(2):222-230.
9	Wong HJ, Su B, Attaar M, et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) results in improved recovery and similar reflux quality of life outcomes compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication[J]. Surg Endosc, 2020, 35(12):7174-7182.
10	Ma L, Li T, Liu G, et al. Stretta radiofrequency treatment vs Toupet fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a comparative study[J]. BMC Gastroenterol,2020,20(1):162.
11	Sumi K, Inoue H, Kobayashi Y, et al. Endoscopic treatment of proton pump inhibitor-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease with anti-reflux mucosectomy: experience of 109 cases[J]. Dig Endosc, 2021,33(3):347-354.
12	Richards WO, Scholz S, Khaitan L, et al. Initial experience with the stretta procedure for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2001,11(5):267-273.
13	Triadafilopoulos G, Dibaise JK, Nostrant TT, et al. Radiofrequency energy delivery to the gastroesophageal junction for the treatment of GERD[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2001,53(4):407-415.
14	Patil G, Dalal A, Maydeo A. Feasibility and outcomes of anti-reflux mucosectomy for proton pump inhibitor dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease: first indian study (with video)[J]. Dig Endosc. 2020,32(5):745-752. DOI: 10.1111/den.13606.
15	Hedberg HM, Kuchta K, Ujiki MB. First experience with banded anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) for GERD: feasibility, safety, and technique (with video)[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2019,23(6):1274-1278.
16	Fass R, Cahn F, Scotti DJ, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and prospective cohort efficacy studies of endoscopic radiofrequency for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. Surg Endosc, 2017,31(12):4865-4882.

[1]	张燕. 超声引导下甲状腺结节射频消融术[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2021, 18(11): 1128-1128.
[2]	杨建波, 马欢, 黄小梅, 刘华柱. 结肠镜辅助下EMR、CSP和RFA术治疗直径＜1cm结直肠息肉的疗效和安全性比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 76-79.
[3]	宋铭杰, 韩青雷, 李佳隆, 邵英梅. 内镜下晚期肝外胆管恶性肿瘤消融治疗研究现况[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 340-342.
[4]	臧宇, 姚胜, 朱新勇, 戎世捧, 田智超. 低温等离子射频消融治疗腹壁疝术后补片感染的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 687-692.
[5]	杨涛, 吕学祥, 李念, 王燕红, 余梦琳, Menglin Yu. 阵发性房颤射频消融术后肺静脉狭窄的临床分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(06): 814-817.
[6]	莫鹏, 郭杏春, 梁秀娟, 王耀明. 超声引导与CT引导射频消融治疗肝细胞癌患者疗效及预后比较[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(02): 151-154.
[7]	蒲丹, 龙煊, 周玉龙, 李甘霖. 血清外泌体miR-224对结直肠癌肝转移患者射频消融治疗后复发的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(01): 45-52.
[8]	姜元喜, 陈莹, 孙会会, 许树长. 内镜下微量射频治疗难治性胃食管反流病疗效的meta分析[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(06): 280-285.
[9]	程付伟, 黄海平, 牛聿玉, 李佳宸, 孙朋. 显微支撑喉镜低温等离子射频消融术对早期声门型喉癌的中长期随访分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(10): 995-999.
[10]	张洁, 靳雅琼, 王梦肖, 高学英, 鲁静朝. 一站式房间隔缺损封堵及心房颤动射频消融一例[J/OL]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2022, 10(02): 93-95.
[11]	薛枫, 孙云娟, 凌琳, 张方芳, 朱莎莎, 郭潇, 王树环, 刘明, 惠杰, 蒋廷波. 心腔内超声在心律失常射频消融术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2022, 10(01): 7-11.
[12]	王楠钧, 马燕, 李隆松, 牛晓彤, 刘圣圳, 毕雅维, 苏松, 柴宁莉, 令狐恩强. 不同年龄段胃低级别上皮内瘤变患者内镜下射频消融术的疗效对比分析[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2024, 11(04): 238-242.
[13]	王楠钧, 柴宁莉, 令狐恩强, 牛晓彤, 刘圣圳, 李隆松, 张文刚, 王沙沙, 高飞. 胃低级别上皮内瘤变内镜下射频消融术后复发患者处置的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2022, 09(04): 207-211.
[14]	马建惠, 文明, 谢芳, 韩琦. 人性化护理在心房颤动合并胃食管反流患者射频消融术中的应用及满意度分析[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2023, 10(01): 46-49.
[15]	张智文, 雷志博, 李牧蔚, 黄改荣, 王山岭, 刘静静, 王婷, 赵丹清, 杨海涛. 心房颤动患者导管射频消融术后复发的危险因素及血小板与淋巴细胞比值对术后复发的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 188-192.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Anti-reflux mucosectomy versus radiofrequency energy delivery for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a single-center randomized controlled trial

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Anti-reflux mucosectomy versus radiofrequency energy delivery for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a single-center randomized controlled trial