Prospective randomized controlled trial of an injectable esophageal prosthesis versus a sham procedure for endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Endoscopic cardiac mucosal ligation: a novel minimally invasive procedure for gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Our objective in this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic cardiac mucosal ligation, a novel endoscopic procedure, in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with refractory GERD or recurrent patients due to drug withdrawal admitted to our hospital were recruited in this clinical trial. All GERD patients were treated with endoscopic cardiac mucosal ligation. Postoperatively, all patients received subsequent follow-ups for approximately four months to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 13 GERD patients were enrolled. Endoscopic cardiac mucosal ligation was successfully performed in all cases. Postoperatively, relevant symptoms were significantly alleviated in 10 patients (76.9%). The average Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire (GERD-Q) score in all participants significantly decreased from preoperative 10.0 ± 3.5 to postoperative 7.8 ± 2.9 (p = .022). The average GERD symptom questionnaire score was 27.0 ± 12.0 prior to surgery, which significantly decreased to 18.3 ± 7.5 postoperatively (p = .032). No severe postoperative complications were observed during subsequent follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic cardiac mucosal ligation might be a novel effective and safe endoscopic procedure for GERD.

Endoscopic Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases that occurs secondary to failure of the antireflux barrier system, resulting in the frequent and abnormal reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. GERD is diagnosed in routine clinical practice based on the classic symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation. However, a subset of patients with atypical symptoms can pose challenges in diagnosing GERD. An esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the most common initial diagnostic test used in the assessment for GERD, although half of these patients will not have any positive endoscopic findings suggestive of GERD. The advanced endoscopic techniques have improved the diagnostic yield of GERD diagnosis and its complications, such as Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. These newer endoscopic tools can better detect subtle irregularities in the mucosa and vascular structures. The management options for GERD include lifestyle modifications, pharmacological therapy, and endoscopic and surgical interventions. The latest addition to the armamentarium is the minimally invasive endoscopic interventions in carefully selected patients, including the electrical stimulation of the LES, Antireflux mucosectomy, Radiofrequency therapy, Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication, Endoscopic Full-Thickness plication (GERDx™), and suturing devices. With the emergence of these advanced endoscopic techniques, it is crucial to understand their selection criteria, advantages, and disadvantages.

Endoscopic interventions in the management of the gastroesophageal reflux: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this review is to describe and compare current and historic endoscopic interventions for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of GERD affects a large portion of the population. Nearly half of those treated with conservative medical therapy have refractory symptoms of reflux. Surgery is a durable solution for reflux, however, it is an invasive procedure and classical fundoplication comes with its own share of side effects and complications. In this review, we will discuss the advantages and pitfalls of available endoscopic procedures, and describe medium-term (up to several years) outcomes.

METHODS

Literature search of the PubMed database, including the years 1999 to 2021 was performed with search terms to reflect the described devices in the review. Individual review of retrieved references was performed for additional sources. Thorough review of societal guidelines was also conducted in preparation of this manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroesophageal reflux is a common problem in the United States and worldwide, and its prevalence continues to increase. Within the last two decades, there have been several new endoscopic modalities introduced for the management of this disease. Here, we present a focused review of endoscopic gastroesophageal reflux interventions, its advantages and pitfalls. Surgeons focusing on the foregut conditions should be aware of these procedures as they may provide a minimally invasive option for the selected group of patients.

Minimally invasive endoscopic therapies for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

The prevalence of the gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in the western world is increasing. Uncontrolled GORD can lead to harmful long-term sequela such as oesophagitis, stricture formation, Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Moreover, GORD has been shown to negatively impact quality of life. The current treatment paradigm for GORD consists of lifestyle modification, pharmacological control of gastric acid secretion or antireflux surgery. In recent years, several minimally invasive antireflux endoscopic therapies (ARET) have been developed which may play a role in bridging the unmet therapeutic gap between the medical and surgical treatment options. To ensure optimal patient outcomes following ARET, considered patient selection is crucial, which requires a mechanistic understanding of individual ARET options. Here, we will discuss the differences between ARETs along with an overview of the current evidence base. We also outline future research priorities that will help refine the future role of ARET.

Endoscopic Treatment of Reflux: A Comprehensive Review

The last decade has seen the rise of multiple novel endoscopic techniques to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease, many of which are efficacious when compared with traditional surgical options and allow relief from long-term dependence on antacid medications. This review will explore the latest endoscopic treatment options for gastroesophageal reflux disease including a description of the technique, review of efficacy and safety, and future directions.

Bulking agents in gastrointestinal endoscopy: present applications and future advances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bulking agents are inert materials injected into an organ to affect the physical properties of the organ for a therapeutic purpose. Various agents have been developed to aid in the treatment of diseases like gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), fecal incontinence, obesity, malignancy, hemostasis, and tissue dissection. Here, we review the state of the art in bulking agents in gastrointestinal endoscopy, past failures, current limitations, and where we see the field heading in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

Though bulking agents have been trialed for various different gastrointestinal diseases, there are currently limited uses in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Though various agents have been trialed for GERD, numerous complications and adverse events have limited its current use. However, for the treatment of fecal incontinence endoscopic bulking agent therapy is a reasonable option. Though in early stages of exploration, bulking agent therapy for enteric protection from radiotherapy may be a promising tool to improve treatment of pancreatic cancer. Bulking agents for tissue dissection have substantially improved lifting agents and complex polyp removal. Bulking agent therapy has not really been explored for endoscopic bariatric therapy or hemostasis but may be a fruitful area for exploration in the future.

SUMMARY

Bulking agent therapy has been trialed for various gastrointestinal diseases with mixed success. There is currently a therapeutic roll in the endoscopic management of fecal incontinence and tissue dissection. A future role in the treatment of GERD, obesity, malignancy, and hemostasis seem feasible.

Efficacy of Endoscopic and Surgical Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Although various endoscopic and surgical procedures are available for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the comparative efficacy of these treatments has not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of various endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. All relevant randomized controlled trials published through August 2021 that compared the efficacy of endoscopic and surgical GERD treatments, including radiofrequency energy delivery, endoscopic plication, reinforcement of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), and surgical fundoplication, were searched. A network meta-analysis was performed to analyze treatment outcomes, including the requirement of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) continuation and GERD-health-related quality of life questionnaire score (GERD-HRQL). As such, 25 studies with 2854 patients were included in the analysis. Endoscopic plication, reinforcement of the LES, and surgical fundoplication were effective in reducing the requirement of PPI continuation compared to PPI therapy (pooled risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]): endoscopic plication, 0.34 (0.21–0.56); reinforcement of LES, 0.32 (0.16–0.63), and surgical fundoplication, 0.16 (0.06–0.42)). Radiofrequency energy delivery tended to reduce the requirement of PPI continuation compared to PPI therapy (RR (95% CI): 0.55 (0.25–1.18)). In terms of GERD-HRQL, all endoscopic and surgical treatments were superior to PPI therapy. In conclusion, all endoscopic or surgical treatments, except radiofrequency energy delivery, were effective for discontinuation of PPI medication, especially surgical fundoplication. Quality of life, measured by GERD-HRQL, also improved in patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical treatment compared to those who received PPI therapy.

Endoscopic anti-reflux therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease has an increasing incidence and prevalence worldwide. A significant proportion of patients have a suboptimal response to proton pump inhibitors or are unwilling to take lifelong medication due to concerns about long-term adverse effects. Endoscopic anti-reflux therapies offer a minimally invasive option for patients unwilling to undergo surgical treatment or take lifelong medication. The best candidates are those with a good response to proton pump inhibitors and without a significant sliding hiatal hernia. Transoral incisionless fundoplication and nonablative radiofrequency are the techniques with the largest body of evidence and that have been tested in several randomized clinical trials. Band-assisted ligation techniques, anti-reflux mucosectomy, anti-reflux mucosal ablation, and new plication devices have yielded promising results in recent noncontrolled studies. Nonetheless, the role of endoscopic procedures remains controversial due to limited long-term and comparative data, and no consensus exists in current clinical guidelines. This review provides an updated summary focused on the patient selection, technical details, clinical success, and safety of current and future endoscopic anti-reflux techniques.

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop

BACKGROUND

The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials.

DESIGN

To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout.

SETTING

A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines.

RESULTS

To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Endoscopic treatments for GERD

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition with increasing prevalence and morbidity in the United States and worldwide. Despite advances in medical and surgical therapy over the last 30 years, gaps remain in the therapeutic profile of options. Flexible upper endoscopy offers the promise of filling in these gaps in a potentially minimally invasive approach. In this concise review, we focus on the plethora of endoluminal therapies available for the treatment of GERD. Therapies discussed include injectable agents, electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter, antireflux mucosectomy, radiofrequency ablation, and endoscopic suturing devices designed to create a fundoplication. As new endoscopic treatments become available, we come closer to the promise of the incisionless treatment of GERD. The known data surrounding the indications, benefits, and risks of these historical, current, and emerging approaches are reviewed in detail.

Innovations in Endoscopic Therapy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Minimally invasive endoscopic antireflux therapies are critical for bridging the gap between medical and surgical treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Although multiple endoscopic devices have been developed, perhaps some of the most exciting options that are currently evolving are the full-thickness suturing techniques using widely available and low-cost platforms. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing can allow for a highly durable recreation of the anatomic and functional components of a lower esophageal sphincter, which are deficient in patients with GERD. Proper patient selection, endoscopic hiatal hernia evaluation, and standardized suturing methods are necessary to ensure success of endoscopic suturing for antireflux therapy.

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

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.

Outcome for Patients With Pathological Esophageal Acid Exposure After Laparoscopic Fundoplication

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to assess symptomatic outcome and need for surgical reintervention for patients identified with pathological esophageal acid exposure by routine postoperative 24-hour pH-monitoring.

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic fundoplication is associated with excellent short- and midterm results, recurrent symptoms pose an important challenge. Postoperative pH-monitoring is considered the "gold standard" for diagnosing recurrent GERD and frequently used for routine postoperative follow up.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication between April 1994 and June 2015 and underwent routine postoperative 24-hour pH-monitoring was performed. Symptomatic outcome and need for surgical reintervention up to 5 years was compared between patients with pathological and physiological postoperative esophageal acid exposure. Primary endpoints were heartburn score and need for surgical reintervention for recurrent reflux.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients in whom routine postoperative 24-hour pH-monitoring was performed were included. Pathological acid exposure was present in 33 patients (11%) compared with 276 patients (89%) with physiological acid exposure. During 5-year follow up, there were no differences in heartburn, dysphagia, or satisfaction scores. Eighteen percent of all patients with abnormal postoperative pH-studies underwent redo fundoplication during 5-year follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathological acid exposure demonstrated by routine postoperative pH-monitoring was not associated with worse symptomatic outcome in terms of reflux control and satisfaction. A possible explanation for this finding is that laparoscopic fundoplication reduces the patients' ability to perceive reflux. This underlines the importance of assessing the association between symptomatic outcome and esophageal function tests in determining outcome of antireflux surgery.

Blinding in trials of interventional procedures is possible and worthwhile

In this paper, we use evidence from our earlier review of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm to show that blinding in trials of interventional procedures is feasible. We give examples of ingenious strategies that have been used to simulate the active procedure and to make the placebo control indistinguishable from the active treatment. We discuss why it is important to blind of patients, assessors, and caregivers and what types of bias that may occur in interventional trials. Finally, we describe the benefits of blinding, from the obvious ones such as avoiding bias, as well as less evident benefits such as avoiding patient drop out in the control arm.

Randomized sham-controlled trials in endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sham procedures in endoscopy are used with the intention of controlling for placebo response, potentially allowing more precise evaluation of treatment effect. Nevertheless, this type of study may impose significant risk without potential benefit for those in the sham group. The aim of the current study was to systematically review and analyze the endoscopic literature to assess the safety of sham controls.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for endoscopic sham procedures for all dates to July 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing an endoscopic therapy with a sham were included. Primary outcome was adverse events (AEs) categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Results were combined using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic, and publication bias was assessed with the Egger test and funnel plots.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 34 publications (1987-2017; 100% full text), with a total of 2492 procedures (1355 treatment/1137 sham). Sham procedures involved upper endoscopy (31 studies) and ERCP (3 studies). Treatment arms included procedures with the following indications: weight loss (38.2%), GI bleeding (26.5%), GERD (20.6%), sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (8.8%), and dysphagia (6.2%). Overall percentage of severe adverse events (SAEs) in the sham group was 1.7% (19/1137). Of these, the most common SAEs in the sham groups were need for surgery/intensive care unit stay (35.3%), post-ERCP pancreatitis (23.5%), and perforation (11.8%). There was no significant difference in the odds of developing an SAE between the treatment group and the sham group (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-2.3). The pooled additional risk incurred from being initially randomized to the sham arm and then receiving a cross-over intervention was significant (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14-1.56; P < .001), compared with patients initially randomized to the study intervention.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of AEs in endoscopic sham procedures is substantial, and patients are subjected to considerable morbidity. These results raise a serious ethical dilemma regarding the use of sham-controlled trials.

Blinding in trials of interventional procedures is possible and worthwhile

In this paper, we use evidence from our earlier review of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm to show that blinding in trials of interventional procedures is feasible. We give examples of ingenious strategies that have been used to simulate the active procedure and to make the placebo control indistinguishable from the active treatment. We discuss why it is important to blind of patients, assessors, and caregivers and what types of bias that may occur in interventional trials. Finally, we describe the benefits of blinding, from the obvious ones such as avoiding bias, as well as less evident benefits such as avoiding patient drop out in the control arm.

Endoluminal Therapy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: In Between the Pill and the Knife?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic disease characterized by symptoms of heartburn and acid regurgitation. Uncontrolled GERD can significantly impact quality of life, can lead to complications, and increases the risk of esophageal cancer. Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing prevalence of GERD among adults in Western populations. The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in conjunction with lifestyle modifications remains the mainstay therapy. However, the efficacy of this intervention is often hampered by adherence, costs, and the risks of long-term PPI use. Anti-reflux surgery is an option for patients with refractory symptoms or in those in whom medical therapy is contraindicated or not desirable. While conventional surgery has an acceptable safety profile, there has been an increasing interest in alternate treatments that may potentially offer similar results and be associated with a faster recovery. Recent advances in interventional endoluminal techniques have introduced novel incisionless anti-reflux procedures. While the current data are promising, further larger prospective studies are needed in order to assess the long-term efficacy of endoluminal therapies and its place among the treatment options for GERD.

Swallowing difficulties with medication intake assessed with a novel self-report questionnaire in patients with systemic sclerosis - a cross-sectional population study

OBJECTIVES

To assess subjective swallowing difficulties (SD) with medication intake and their practical consequences in patients suffering from systemic sclerosis (SSc) with a novel self-report questionnaire.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Based on a systematic literature review, we developed a self-report questionnaire and got it approved by an expert panel. Subsequently, we sent the questionnaire by post mail to SSc patients of the European Center for the Rehabilitation of Scleroderma Rheinfelden, Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients were eligible if they were diagnosed with SSc, treated at the center, and were of age ≥18 years at the study start.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence and pattern of SD with oral medication intake, including localization and intensity of complaints.

RESULTS

The questionnaire consisted of 30 items divided into five sections Complaints, Intensity, Localization, Coping strategies, and Adherence. Of the 64 SSc patients eligible in 2014, 43 (67%) returned the questionnaire. Twenty patients reported SD with medication intake (prevalence 47%), either currently (11; 26%) or in the past that had been overcome (9; 21%). Self-reported SD were localized mostly in the larynx (43%) and esophagus (34%). They were of moderate (45%) or strong to unbearable intensity (25%). Modification of the dosage form was reported in 40% of cases with SD. Adherence was poor for 20 (47%) patients and was not associated with SD (p=0.148).

CONCLUSION

Our novel self-report questionnaire is able to assess the pattern of complaints linked to medication intake, that is, localization and intensity. It may serve as a guide for health care professionals in selecting the most suitable therapy option, enabling tailored counseling to reduce inappropriate medication modifications.

Feasibility of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To find evidence, either corroborating or refuting, for many persisting beliefs regarding the feasibility of carrying out surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm, with emphasis on the challenges related to recruitment, funding, anaesthesia or blinding.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The analysis involved studies published between 1959 and 2014 that were identified during an earlier systematic review of benefits and harms of placebo-controlled surgical trials published in 2014.

RESULTS

63 trials were included in the review. The main problem reported in many trials was a very slow recruitment rate, mainly due to the difficulty in finding eligible patients. Existing placebo trials were funded equally often from commercial and non-commercial sources. General anaesthesia or sedation was used in 41% of studies. Among the reviewed trials, 81% were double-blinded, and 19% were single-blinded. Across the reviewed trials, 96% (range 50-100%) of randomised patients completed the study. The withdrawal rate during the study was similar in the surgical and in the placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible, at least for procedures with a lower level of invasiveness, but also that recruitment is difficult. Many of the presumed challenges to undertaking such trials, for example, funding, anaesthesia or blinding of patients and assessors, were not reported as obstacles to completion in any of the reviewed trials.

Critical Assessment of Endoscopic Techniques for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Over the past 2 decades, a number of new endoscopic techniques have been developed for management of gastroesophageal (GE) reflux disease symptoms as alternatives to medical management and surgical fundoplication. These devices include application of radiofrequency treatment (Stretta), endoscopic plication (EndoCinch, Plicator, Esophyx, MUSE), and injection of bulking agents (Enteryx, Gatekeeper, Plexiglas, Duragel). Their goal was symptom relief through reduction of tissue compliance and enhancement of anatomic resistance at the GE junction. In this review, we critically assess the research behind the efficacy, safety, and durability of these treatments to better understand their roles in contemporary GE reflux disease management.

Ensocopic-endoluminal therapies. A critical appraisal

Due to its large prevalence, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is an ideal target for companies developing medical devices designed to cure reflux. Indeed, because medications leave part of the patients unsatisfied, there is a potential place for alternative therapies, capable of restoring an efficacious anti-reflux barrier, but without the drawbacks of surgery. For more than a decade, several novel endoluminal therapies were developed, clinically evaluated, put on the market and, for many of them, withdrawn due to economic considerations, lack of efficacy or complications. These therapies were designed to act on the gastro-oesophageal junction and reinforce mechanically the anti-reflux barrier by three different ways: suturing, radiofrequency energy application, or implantation of foreign materials. Most of the published data come from open uncontrolled studies with short-term enthusiastic results. There are a few randomized control trials assessing the true efficacy of these modalities, showing often less impressive results than the open studies did, due to a high placebo effect in mild gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Although endoscopic treatment of gastro-oesophageal disease is still an interesting topic of investigation, one can draw some lessons from the recent experiences and foresee which place these techniques could find in the management of patients suffering from reflux.