THE EFFICACY OF THE DIFFERENT ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENTS VERSUS SHAM, PHARMACOLOGIC OR SURGICAL METHODS FOR CHRONIC GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributorSistema FMUSP-HC: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) e Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP
dc.contributor.authorCORONEL, Martin Andrés
dc.contributor.authorBERNARDO, Wanderley Marques
dc.contributor.authorMOURA, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de
dc.contributor.authorMOURA, Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de
dc.contributor.authorRIBEIRO, Igor Braga
dc.contributor.authorMOURA, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-05T13:41:08Z
dc.date.available2019-02-05T13:41:08Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.description.abstractABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Endoscopic antireflux treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are still evolving, and most of the published studies address symptom relief in the short-term. Objective - We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on evaluating the efficacy of the different endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO, and EMBASE for patients with chronic GERD (>6 months), over 18 years old and available follow up of at least 3 months. The main outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments compared to sham, pharmacological or surgical treatment. Efficacy was measured by different subjective and objective outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 16 RCT, totaling 1085 patients. The efficacy of endoscopic treatments compared to sham and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment showed a significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy with no heterogeneity (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy: endoscopy vs PPI (P<0.00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopy vs sham (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). Most subjective and objective outcomes were statistically significant in favor of endoscopy up to 6 and 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows a good short-term efficacy in favor of endoscopic procedures when comparing them to a sham and pharmacological or surgical treatment. Data on long-term follow up is lacking and this should be explored in future studies.eng
dc.description.abstractRESUMO CONTEXTO: Os tratamentos endoscópicos para a doença do refluxo gastroesofágico (DRGE) ainda estão em evolução e a maioria dos estudos publicados abordam o alívio dos sintomas em curto prazo. OBJETIVO: Pretendemos realizar uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise focada na avaliação da eficácia dos diferentes procedimentos endoscópicos. MÉTODOS: A pesquisa foi restrita a ensaios clínicos randomizados em MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO e EMBASE para pacientes com DRGE crônica (>6 meses), com mais de 18 anos e acompanhamento disponível por pelo menos 3 meses. O principal desfecho foi avaliar a eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. A eficácia foi medida por diferentes resultados subjetivos e objetivos. RESULTADOS: Analisamos dados de 16 ensaios clínicos randomizados, totalizando 1085 pacientes. A eficácia dos tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento com sham e inibidores da bomba de prótons mostrou uma diferença significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia sem heterogeneidade (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A análise do subgrupo mostrou diferença estatisticamente significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia: endoscopia vs inibidores da bomba de prótons (P<0,00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopia vs sham (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A maioria dos resultados subjetivos e objetivos foram estatisticamente significativos em favor da endoscopia até 6 e 12 meses de acompanhamento. CONCLUSÃO: Esta revisão sistemática e meta-análise mostrou uma boa eficácia a curto prazo em favor dos procedimentos endoscópicos ao compará-los a tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. Não existem dados sobre o acompanhamento a longo prazo e isso deve ser explorado em estudos futuros.por
dc.description.indexMEDLINEeng
dc.identifier.citationARQUIVOS DE GASTROENTEROLOGIA, v.55, n.3, p.296-305, 2018
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/s0004-2803.201800000-65
dc.identifier.issn1678-4219
dc.identifier.urihttps://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/30742
dc.language.isoengpor
dc.publisherInstituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia e Outras Especialidades - IBEPEGE.eng
dc.relation.ispartofArquivos de Gastroenterologia
dc.rightsopenAccesseng
dc.rights.holderCopyright Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos e Pesquisas de Gastroenterologia e Outras Especialidades - IBEPEGE.eng
dc.subjectGastroesophageal reflux, therapyeng
dc.subjectGastrointestinal endoscopyeng
dc.subjectFollow-Up Studieseng
dc.subjectRevieweng
dc.subjectRefluxo gastroesofágico, terapiaeng
dc.subjectEndoscopia gastrointestinaleng
dc.subjectSeguimentoseng
dc.subjectRevisãoeng
dc.subject.wosGastroenterology & Hepatologyeng
dc.titleTHE EFFICACY OF THE DIFFERENT ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENTS VERSUS SHAM, PHARMACOLOGIC OR SURGICAL METHODS FOR CHRONIC GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSISeng
dc.title.alternativeA eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos versus métodos sham, farmacológicos ou cirúrgicos para o refluxo gastroesofágico crônico: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análiseeng
dc.typearticleeng
dc.type.categoryrevieweng
dc.type.versionpublishedVersioneng
dspace.entity.typePublication
hcfmusp.citation.scopus6
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcMARTIN ANDRES CORONEL CORDERO
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcWANDERLEY MARQUES BERNARDO
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcDIOGO TURIANI HOURNEAUX DE MOURA
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcEDUARDO TURIANI HOURNEAUX DE MOURA
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcIGOR BRAGA RIBEIRO
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcEDUARDO GUIMARAES HOURNEAUX DE MOURA
hcfmusp.description.beginpage296
hcfmusp.description.endpage305
hcfmusp.description.issue3
hcfmusp.description.volume55
hcfmusp.origemsciELO
hcfmusp.origem.pubmed30540095
hcfmusp.origem.scieloSCIELO:S0004-28032018002300296
hcfmusp.origem.scopus2-s2.0-85058363859
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAntoniou SA, 2012, SURG ENDOSC, V26, P1063, DOI 10.1007/s00464-011-1999-0eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceArts J, 2012, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V107, P222, DOI 10.1038/ajg.2011.395eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAziz AMA, 2010, SURG ENDOSC, V24, P818, DOI 10.1007/s00464-009-0671-4eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBoeckxstaens G, 2014, GUT, V63, P1185, DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306393eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceCamilleri M, 2005, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V3, P543, DOI 10.1053/S1542-3565(05)00153-9eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceChan Y, 2010, ALIMENT PHARM THER, V31, P452, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04187.xeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceCorley DA, 2003, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V125, P668, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5085(03)01052-7eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceCoron E, 2008, ALIMENT PHARM THER, V28, P1147, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03790.xeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDEMEESTER TR, 1974, ANN SURG, V180, P511eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDERSIMONIAN R, 1986, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V7, P177, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDeviere J, 2005, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V128, P532, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.12.005eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDughera L, 2014, GASTROENT RES PRACT, DOI 10.1155/2014/531907eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceEASTERBROOK PJ, 1991, LANCET, V337, P867, DOI 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Yeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceEdgren G, 2013, GUT, V62, P1406, DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302412eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceEl-Serag HB, 2014, GUT, V63, P871, DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceFockens P, 2010, SURG ENDOSC, V24, P1387, DOI 10.1007/s00464-009-0784-9eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGalmiche JP, 2011, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V305, P1969, DOI 10.1001/jama.2011.626eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHakansson B, 2015, ALIMENT PHARM THER, V42, P1261, DOI 10.1111/apt.13427eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHatlebakk JG, 2016, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V14, P678, DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.07.025eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHuang XQ, 2017, SURG ENDOSC, V31, P1032, DOI 10.1007/s00464-016-5111-7eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHunter JG, 2015, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V148, P324, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.10.009eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceJadad AR, 1996, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V17, P1, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceJAMIESON JR, 1992, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V87, P1102eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKaindlstorfer A, 2013, SURG LAPARO ENDO PER, V23, P212, DOI 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182827f79eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKim HJ, 2016, SURG ENDOSC, V30, P3402, DOI 10.1007/s00464-015-4622-yeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLipka S, 2015, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V13, P1058, DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.10.013eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMontgomery M, 2006, SCAND J GASTROENTERO, V41, P1382, DOI 10.1080/00365520600735738eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMoraes JPP, 2004, BEST PRACT RES CL GA, V18, P23, DOI 10.1016/j.bpg.2004.06.008eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMoraes-Filho Joaquim Prado P., 2005, Arq. Gastroenterol., V42, P122, DOI 10.1590/S0004-28032005000200011eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNoar M, 2014, SURG ENDOSC, V28, P2323, DOI 10.1007/s00464-014-3461-6eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMokkink LB, 2010, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V63, P737, DOI [10.1136/bmj.c869, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006, 10.1002/14651858.CD008242.pub3, 10.1002/14651858.CD008216.pub4, 10.1136/bmj.b2535, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004]eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRinsma NF, 2015, NEUROGASTROENT MOTIL, V27, P220, DOI 10.1111/nmo.12468eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRothstein R, 2006, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V131, P704, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.07.004eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRothstein RI, 2008, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V42, P594, DOI 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31816bcde5eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSchwartz MP, 2007, GUT, V56, P20, DOI 10.1136/gut.2006.096842eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSpechler SJ, 2001, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V285, P2331, DOI 10.1001/jama.285.18.2331eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceTestoni PA, 2015, SURG ENDOSC, V29, P2770, DOI 10.1007/s00464-014-4008-6eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceThosani N, 2017, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V86, P931eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceTrad KS, 2015, SURG INNOV, V22, P26, DOI 10.1177/1553350614526788eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceVakil N, 2006, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V101, P1900, DOI 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.xeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceVelanovich V, 1996, J AM COLL SURGEONS, V183, P217eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWitteman BPL, 2015, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V110, P531, DOI 10.1038/ajg.2015.28eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceZacherl J, 2015, SURG ENDOSC, V29, P220, DOI 10.1007/s00464-014-3731-3eng
hcfmusp.scopus.lastupdate2024-05-10
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationb50e9c00-f076-4b44-9ab4-b1086a684a13
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationc86b438c-c045-42c0-bbbb-347de72d169c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication97b671af-49f1-40ee-a539-d97baba7a51f
relation.isAuthorOfPublication65ef9774-b7d0-45bf-ad10-820cc89a931e
relation.isAuthorOfPublication938f5746-02bd-4e1f-9788-086fe7962335
relation.isAuthorOfPublication517f6297-b2fc-4922-8fa3-ccc23ee287c7
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryb50e9c00-f076-4b44-9ab4-b1086a684a13
Arquivos
Pacote Original
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
art_CORONEL_THE_EFFICACY_OF_THE_DIFFERENT_ENDOSCOPIC_TREATMENTS_VERSUS_2018.PDF
Tamanho:
2.09 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
publishedVersion (English)
Baixar
Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/35