Efficacy and safety of gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (GPOEM) in lung transplant patients with refractory gastroparesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

[BACKGROUND] Post-lung transplant gastroparesis is a frequent debilitating complication of lung transplant recipients, as it can increase the risk for gastro-esophageal reflux disease and subsequent graft dysfunction. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GPOEM in lung transplant patients with refractory gastroparesis.

[METHODS] The present systematic review and meta-analysis wer performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We selected studies that analyzed the gastroparesis cardinal symptom index (GCSI) before and after the procedure to verify the efficacy of GPOEM. Random-effects model was used and the analysis was performed with STATA 17.

[RESULTS] Four observational studies (one conference abstract) with 104 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Prior treatments for gastroparesis included prokinetic agents and botulinum toxin in 78% (78/104) and 66.7% (66/99), respectively. Pooled estimate for clinical efficacy of GPOEM was 83% (95% CI 76%-90%). The pooled mean reduction in GCSI following the procedure was - 2.01 (- 2.35, - 1.65, p = 0.014). Three studies reported statistically significant improvement of gastro-esophageal retention or emptying in the post-GPOEM period. 30-day post-operative complications included minor or major bleeding (11.6%), severe reflux (1.2%), and pyloric stenosis (1.2%) requiring re-intervention. 90-day all-cause mortality was 2.6% with one patient dying from severe allograft rejection.

[CONCLUSION] Our study showed that GPOEM is an effective and safe strategy for lung transplant patients with refractory gastroparesis and should be considered as a therapeutic strategy in this population. Larger multicenter trials are needed in the future to further evaluate the effect of GPOEM on allograft function and rates of rejection.