RESUMO 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.

ABSTRACT 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.

To compare the complications and mortality related to gastrostomy procedures performed using surgical and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques, this review covered seven studies. Five of these were retrospective and two were randomized prospective studies. In total, 406 patients were involved, 232 of whom had undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and 174 of whom had undergone surgical gastrostomy. The analysis was performed using Review Manager. Risk differences were computed using a fixed-effects model and forest and funnel plots. Data on risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the Mantel-Haenszel test. There was no difference in major complications in retrospective (95% CI (-0.11 to 0.10)) or randomized (95% CI (-0.07 to 0.05)) studies. Regarding minor complications, no difference was found in retrospective studies (95% CI (-00.17 to 0.09)), whereas a difference was observed in randomized studies (95% CI (-0.25 to -0.02)). Separate analyses of retrospective and randomized studies revealed no differences between the methods in relation to mortality and major complications. Moreover, low levels of minor complications were observed among endoscopic procedures in randomized studies, with no difference observed compared with retrospective studies.