Endoscopic clips versus overstitch suturing system device for mucosotomy closure after peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM): a prospective single-center study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

G-POEM is an emerging method for treatment of severe gastroparesis. Safe mucosal closure is necessary to avoid adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two closure methods: clips and endoscopic suturing (ES) after G-POEM.

METHODS

We performed a single center, prospective study. The closure method was assigned at the discretion of an endoscopist prior to the procedure. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with successful closure. Unsuccessful closure was defined as a need for a rescue method, or a need for an additional intervention or incomplete closure-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the easiness of closure (VAS score 1 = very difficult, 10 = easy), closure time, and cost.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients [21 female; mean age, range 47.5; (20-74)] were included; 20 received ES and 20 clips [mean number of clips 6; range (4-19)]. All 20 patients with ES (100%, 95% CI 84-100%) and 18 patients with clips (89%, 95% CI 70-97%) had successful closure (p = 0.49). One patient needed a rescue method (KING closure) and the other patient an additional clipping on POD1. Closure with clips was quicker [mean time 9.8 (range 4-20) min vs. 14.1 (5-21) min; p = 0.007] and cheaper [mean cost 807 USD (± 402) vs. 2353 USD (± 145); p < 0.001]. Endoscopist assessed the easiness of ES and clips as comparable [mean VAS, range 7.5 (3-10) (ES) vs. 6.9 (3-10) (clips); p = 0.3].

CONCLUSIONS

Both ES and clips are effective methods for mucosal closure in patients undergoing G-POEM. However, centres using clips should have a rescue closure method available as clips may fail in some patients. Closure with ES is more costly than with clips.