切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华胃食管反流病电子杂志 ›› 2024, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (03) : 121 -125. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8765.2024.03.002

论著

抗反流黏膜消融术治疗胃食管反流病患者的临床疗效
张靖1, 柏君1, 陈玉盟1, 张鹏1, 侯芳芳1, 王军芳1, 孙静1, 赵士博1, 杨喆1, 张玥1, 张瑞芳1, 朱宏斌1,()   
  1. 1.300142 天津,联勤保障部队第九八三医院消化内科
  • 收稿日期:2023-11-27 出版日期:2024-08-15
  • 通信作者: 朱宏斌
  • 基金资助:
    天津市医学重点学科(TJYXZDXK-077D)

Clinical efficacy study of anti-reflux mucosal ablation in gastroesophageal reflux disease

Jing Zhang1, Jun Bai1, Yumen Chen1, Peng Zhang1, Fangfang Hou1, Junfang Wang1, Jing Sun1, Shibo Zhao1, Zhe Yang1, Yue Zhang1, Ruifang Zhang1, Hongbin Zhu1,()   

  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology,the 983rd Hospital,Joint Logistic Support Force,Tianjin300142,China
  • Received:2023-11-27 Published:2024-08-15
  • Corresponding author: Hongbin Zhu
引用本文:

张靖, 柏君, 陈玉盟, 张鹏, 侯芳芳, 王军芳, 孙静, 赵士博, 杨喆, 张玥, 张瑞芳, 朱宏斌. 抗反流黏膜消融术治疗胃食管反流病患者的临床疗效[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 121-125.

Jing Zhang, Jun Bai, Yumen Chen, Peng Zhang, Fangfang Hou, Junfang Wang, Jing Sun, Shibo Zhao, Zhe Yang, Yue Zhang, Ruifang Zhang, Hongbin Zhu. Clinical efficacy study of anti-reflux mucosal ablation in gastroesophageal reflux disease[J]. Chinese Journal of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease(Electronic Edition), 2024, 11(03): 121-125.

目的

探讨抗反流黏膜消融术(ARMA)治疗胃食管反流病(GERD)患者临床研究。

方法

回顾性分析2020 年3 月至2023 年12 月联勤保障部队第九八三医院通过24 h 动态食管pH 监测确定为GERD 的患者,并进行ARMA 患者的临床资料。通过术前和术后6 个月后患者的24 h 动态食管pH 监测、胃食管反流病问卷(GERD-Q)量表评分以及简明健康问卷(SF-36)观察分析ARMA 在不同胃食管反流瓣阀(GEFV)分级中的疗效。

结果

本研究共纳入患者36 例。ARMA术后6 个月30 例患者的GERD-Q 评分阳性患者转为阴性或评分下降,有效率为83.3%(30/36)。GERD-Q 评分阳性患者25 例治愈,无需服用质子泵抑制剂(PPI),治愈率为69.4%(25/36)。在GEFV 的Ⅰ~Ⅲ级的患者中,术后6 个月24 h 动态食管pH 监测显示患者术后主要是气体反流为主,其GERD-Q 评分与SF-36 评分均有统计学意义的改善(P<0.05)。同时患者的反酸、烧心、胸痛及PPI 类药物的服用量和频次均明显改善。同时GEFV 的Ⅳ级患者术后24 h 动态食管pH 监测次按时患者术后主要反流是以酸性混合性反流为主,其GERD-Q 评分和SF-36 评分与术前相比无统计学差别(P>0.05)。

结论

ARMA 对GEFV 分级为Ⅰ~Ⅲ级的GERD 患者有良好的疗效,对GEFV 分级为Ⅳ级的患者疗效欠佳。

Objective

Clinical studies of Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are rare. This study observed the clinical efficacy of ARMA on GERD through a retrospective study.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of the efficacy of ARMA in patients identified as GERD by 24 h dynamic esophageal pH monitoring. Efficacy was observed by 24 h dynamic esophageal pH monitoring, GERD-Q scale score and quality-of-life rating scale (SF-36) before and after 6 months. The efficacy of ARMA in different gastroesophageal reflux valve (GEFV) grades was also observed.

Results

Thirty-six patients were included in this study. Six months after ARMA, 30 patients with positive GERD-Q scores turned negative or decreased scores, with a response rate of 83.3% (30/36). 25 patients with positive GERD-Q score were cured without taking PPI, with a cure rate of 69.4% (25/36). In patients with grades Ⅰ-Ⅲ of GEFV, 24 h dynamic esophageal pH monitoring showed 6 months after surgery,with a statistically significant improvement in GERD-Q score and SF-36 score (P<0.05). At the same time,the dosage and frequency of acid reflux, heartburn, chest pain and PPI drugs were significantly improved.Meanwhile, GEFV patients with 24 h after surgery had acid mixed reflux, and their GERD-Q scores and SF-36 scores were not statistically different compared with preoperative ones (P >0.05).

Conclusion

ARMA has good efficacy in GERD patients with GEFV grade Ⅰ-Ⅲ and poor efficacy in patients with GEFV gradeⅣ.

图1 胃食管瓣阀分级 注:a 为Ⅰ级;b 为Ⅱ级;c 为Ⅲ级;d 为Ⅳ级
图2 抗反流黏膜消融术 a、b 为术前内镜检查及胃食管反流瓣阀情况;c 为抗反流黏膜消融术术中;d 为抗反流黏膜消融术术后6 个月
表1 患者基本信息[例(%)]
表2 ARMA 术前及术后6 个月随访变化
1
Bredenoord AJ, Pandolfino JE, Smout AJ. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease [J]. Lancet, 2013, 381(9881): 1933-1942.
2
Herbella FA, Patti MG. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: from pathophysiology to treatment [J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2010, 16(30):3745-3749
3
Vaezi MF, Yang YX, Howden CW. Complications of proton pump inhibitor therapy [J]. Gastroenterology, 2017, 153(1): 35-48
4
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.
5
Sui X, Gao X, Zhang L, et al. Clinical efficacy of endoscopic antireflux-mucosectomy vs. Stretta radiofrequency in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a retrospective, single-center cohort study[J]. Ann Translat Med, 2022, 10(12): 660.
6
Inoue H, Tanabe M, de Santiago ER, et al. Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) as a new treatment for gastroesophageal reflux refractory to proton pump inhibitors: a pilot study [J]. Endosc Int Open, 2020, 8(2): E133-E138.
7
Lechien JR, Dapri G, Dequanter D, et al. Surgical treatment for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: a systematic review [J]. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2019, 145(7): 655-666.
8
Ward MA, Ebrahim A, Kopita J, et al. Magnetic sphincter augmentation is an effective treatment for atypical symptoms caused by gastroesophageal reflux disease [J]. Surg Endosc, 2020, 34(11):4909-4915.
9
Trad KS, Turgeon DG, Deljkich E. Long-term outcomes after transoral incisionless fundoplication in patients with GERD and LPR symptoms[J]. Surg Endosc, 2012, 26(3): 650-660.
10
Gao X, Wang ZG, Wu JM, et al. Radiofrequency treatment on respiratory symptoms due to gastroesophageal reflux disease [J]. Chin Med J, 2011, 124(7): 1006-1009.
11
Osman A, Albashir MM, Nandipati K, et al. Esophagogastric junction morphology on Hill's classification predicts gastroesophageal reflux with good accuracy and consistency [J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2021, 66(1):151-159.
[1] 邢益民, 张天飞, 戴慧勇. 胃肠充盈超声造影检查在反酸、嗳气患者临床诊断中的应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 303-306.
[2] 李海云, 赵敏娴, 申英末, 杨慧琪. 胃底折叠术预防食管裂孔疝术后并发症的研究进展[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 485-490.
[3] 玉素江·图荪托合提, 韩琦, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 黄旭东, 王浩, 克力木·阿不都热依木, 艾克拜尔·艾力. 腹腔镜袖状胃切除或联合食管裂孔疝修补术对肥胖症合并胃食管反流病的中期疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 501-506.
[4] 任传富, 杨志, 徐恩, 何梓芸, 罗板鑫, 陈新, 夏雪峰. 腹腔镜疝修补术联合胃底折叠术治疗食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病40 例临床分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 507-511.
[5] 胡志伟, 吴继敏, 汪忠镐, 张美光. 胃食管反流病食管外症状抗反流手术适应证及术前评估[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 241-246.
[6] 梁艳, 胡志伟, 刘健男, 宋庆, 陈冬, 田书瑞, 李冉, 毛建新. 高分辨率食管测压在胃食管反流病食管运动功能评价中的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 89-92.
[7] 胡志伟, 吴继敏, 邓昌荣, 战秀岚, 纪涛, 王峰, 田书瑞, 陈冬, 张玉, 刘健男, 宋庆. 抗反流黏膜套扎治疗顽固性胃食管反流病[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 227-233.
[8] 孙武青, 郭震, 郝少龙, 孙海涛, 姬阆, 白日星, 韩威. LSG中保留胃窦部及His角完整性对术后胃食管反流病的影响[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(02): 95-99.
[9] 唐小久, 胡曼, 许必君, 肖亚. 肥胖合并胃食管反流病患者严重程度与其焦虑抑郁及营养状态的相关性研究[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 360-364.
[10] 张静, 白亦冰, 来要良, 刘永, 和媛媛, 苏敏. 不同体位对胃食管反流病患者食管高分辨率测压的影响[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 115-120.
[11] 庄茜钧, 江典轩, 肖英莲. 中国胃食管反流病的诊疗进展[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(02): 75-80.
[12] 李治仝, 胡珂琳, 刘冰熔, 韩新巍, 李晶晶, 张浩然, 张旭航, 季锋, 汪忠镐. 抗反流手术治疗胃食管反流病合并食管裂孔疝相关性顽固性呃逆的临床疗效[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(02): 91-94.
[13] 詹崇文, 汪洁, 沈奇伟, 花荣, 姚琪远. 胃袖状切除术联合膈肌脚塑形术对术后胃食管反流的影响[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(01): 1-5.
[14] 王文娟, 张翠, 高晨, 文敏. 内镜下胃食管松弛程度在胃食管反流病筛查中的应用[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(01): 11-17.
[15] 中国医师协会外科医师分会肥胖和代谢病外科专家工作组, 中国医师协会外科医师分会胃食管反流疾病诊疗外科专家工作组, 日本肥胖治疗学会, 韩国减重与代谢外科学会. 袖状胃切除术患者胃食管反流病诊治专家共识(2024版)[J]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 145-162.
阅读次数
全文


摘要