Search

Background and Aim: Anti‐reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) is an emerging endoscopic treatment aimed at enhancing the gastroesophageal junction flap valve. This study aimed to evaluate its feasibility, effectiveness, and safety. Methods: Between May 2018 and December 2022, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms refractory to acid suppression medications or those dependent on such medications were enrolled for ARMA. This retrospective analysis utilized prospectively collected data from an international bi‐center study. GERD questionnaire, upper endoscopy, and 24‐h pH monitoring were conducted at 2–6 months and 12 months post‐ARMA. Clinical success was defined as a > 50% reduction in a validated GERD questionnaire. Results: A total of 68 patients underwent ARMA. Definitive GERD was diagnosed in 44 (64.7%) patients, while 24 (35.3%) exhibited reflux hypersensitivity. Clinical success rates at 2–6 months and 1 year post‐ARMA were 60% (39/65) and 70% (21/30), respectively. The median GERD‐health‐related quality of life score significantly improved from 26 to 11 at 2–6 months (P < 0.001). Among the 51 patients (71.8%) who underwent 24‐h pH monitoring, the median acid exposure time decreased from 5.3% to 0.7% (P = 0.003), accompanied by a significant reduction in esophagitis rates (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis did not identify predictors of short‐term success. Nine (13.2%) patients experienced transient stenosis requiring balloon dilation. Conclusions: ARMA demonstrates both technical feasibility and reproducibility as a safe procedure that effectively ameliorates GERD symptoms in approximately two‐thirds of patients during short‐term follow up. Both reflux hypersensitivity and confirmed GERD patients, regardless of their response to acid suppression medication, may be suitable candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Absent contractility (AC) and ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) are esophageal hypomotility disorders diagnosed using high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Patient characteristics and disease course of these conditions and differential diagnosis between AC and achalasia are yet to be elucidated. Methods: A multicenter study involving 10 high‐volume hospitals was conducted. Starlet HRM findings were compared between AC and achalasia. Patient characteristics including underlying disorders and disease courses were analyzed in AC and IEM. Results: Fifty‐three patients with AC and 92 with IEM were diagnosed, while achalasia was diagnosed in 1784 patients using the Chicago classification v3.0 (CCv3.0). The cut‐off integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) value at 15.7 mmHg showed maximum sensitivity (0.80) and specificity (0.87) for differential diagnosis of AC from type I achalasia. While most ACs were based on systemic disorders such as scleroderma (34%) and neuromuscular diseases (8%), 23% were sporadic cases. The symptom severity of AC was not higher than that of IEM. Regarding the diagnosis of IEM, the more stringent CCv4.0 excluded 14.1% of IEM patients than the CCv3.0, although patient characteristics did not change. In patients with the hypomotile esophagus, concomitance of reflux esophagitis was associated with low distal contractile integral and IRP values. AC and IEM transferred between each other, paralleling with the underlying disease course, although no transition to achalasia was observed. Conclusion: A successful determination of the optimal cut‐off IRP value was achieved using the starlet HRM system to differentiate AC and achalasia. Follow‐up HRM is also useful for differentiating AC from achalasia. Symptom severity may depend on underlying diseases instead of hypomotility severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]