BACKGROUND & AIMS: High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a relatively new treatment for medically refractory gastroparesis. There have been a number of clinical studies based on the use of a high-frequency stimulator (Enterra, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN). A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate evidence for improved clinical outcome with this device. METHODS: A literature search of major medical databases was performed for the period January 1992 to August 2008. Clinical studies involving an implanted high-frequency GES device were included and reported a range of clinical outcomes. Studies of external, temporary, and/or low-frequency GES were excluded. RESULTS: Of 13 included studies, 12 lacked controls and only one was blinded and randomized. Following GES, patients reported improvements in total symptom severity score (3/13 studies, mean difference 6.52 [confidence interval--CI: 1.32, 11.73]; P = 0.01), vomiting severity score (4/13, 1.45 [CI: 0.99, 1.91]; P < 0.0001), nausea severity score (4/13, 1.69 [CI: 1.26, 2.12]; P < 0.0001), SF-36 physical composite score (4/13, 8.05 [CI: 5.01, 11.10]; P < 0.0001), SF-36 mental composite score (4/13, 8.16 [CI: 4.85, 11.47]; P < 0.0001), requirement for enteral or parenteral nutrition (8/13, OR 5.53 [CI: 2.75, 11.13]; P < 0.001), and 4-h gastric emptying (5/13, 12.7% [CI: 9.8, 15.6]; P < 0.0001). Weight gain did not reach significance (3/13, 3.68 kg [CI: -0.23, 7.58]; P = 0.07). The device removal or reimplantation rate was 8.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Results show substantial benefits for high-frequency GES in the treatment of gastroparesis. However, caution is necessary in interpreting the results, primarily because of the limitations of uncontrolled studies. Further controlled studies are required to confirm the clinical benefits of high-frequency GES.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a relatively new treatment for medically refractory gastroparesis. There have been a number of clinical studies based on the use of a high-frequency stimulator (Enterra, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN). A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate evidence for improved clinical outcome with this device. METHODS: A literature search of major medical databases was performed for the period January 1992 to August 2008. Clinical studies involving an implanted high-frequency GES device were included and reported a range of clinical outcomes. Studies of external, temporary, and/or low-frequency GES were excluded. RESULTS: Of 13 included studies, 12 lacked controls and only one was blinded and randomized. Following GES, patients reported improvements in total symptom severity score (3/13 studies, mean difference 6.52 [confidence interval--CI: 1.32, 11.73]; P = 0.01), vomiting severity score (4/13, 1.45 [CI: 0.99, 1.91]; P < 0.0001), nausea severity score (4/13, 1.69 [CI: 1.26, 2.12]; P < 0.0001), SF-36 physical composite score (4/13, 8.05 [CI: 5.01, 11.10]; P < 0.0001), SF-36 mental composite score (4/13, 8.16 [CI: 4.85, 11.47]; P < 0.0001), requirement for enteral or parenteral nutrition (8/13, OR 5.53 [CI: 2.75, 11.13]; P < 0.001), and 4-h gastric emptying (5/13, 12.7% [CI: 9.8, 15.6]; P < 0.0001). Weight gain did not reach significance (3/13, 3.68 kg [CI: -0.23, 7.58]; P = 0.07). The device removal or reimplantation rate was 8.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Results show substantial benefits for high-frequency GES in the treatment of gastroparesis. However, caution is necessary in interpreting the results, primarily because of the limitations of uncontrolled studies. Further controlled studies are required to confirm the clinical benefits of high-frequency GES.
Authors: Thomas L Abell; Eric Van Cutsem; Hasse Abrahamsson; Jan D Huizinga; J W Konturek; Jean Paul Galmiche; Guy VoelIer; Ludo Filez; Bernt Everts; William E Waterfall; W Domschke; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Babajide O Familoni; Ivan M Bourgeois; Jozef Janssens; Gervais Tougas Journal: Digestion Date: 2002 Impact factor: 3.216
Authors: Thomas Abell; Richard McCallum; Michael Hocking; Kenneth Koch; Hasse Abrahamsson; Isabelle Leblanc; Greger Lindberg; Jan Konturek; Thomas Nowak; Eammon M M Quigley; Gervais Tougas; Warren Starkebaum Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Peng Du; G O'Grady; J U Egbuji; W J Lammers; D Budgett; P Nielsen; J A Windsor; A J Pullan; L K Cheng Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2009-02-18 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Wim J E P Lammers; Luc Ver Donck; Betty Stephen; Dirk Smets; Jan A J Schuurkes Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jennifer L Maranki; Vanessa Lytes; John E Meilahn; Sean Harbison; Frank K Friedenberg; Robert S Fisher; Henry P Parkman Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2007-12-14 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Sanchali Deb; Shou-jiang Tang; Thomas L Abell; Tyler McLawhorn; Wen-Ding Huang; Christopher Lahr; S D Filip To; Julie Easter; J-C Chiao Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: P Du; S Li; G O'Grady; L K Cheng; A J Pullan; J D Z Chen Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Gregory O'Grady; Peng Du; Wim J E P Lammers; John U Egbuji; Pulasthi Mithraratne; Jiande D Z Chen; Leo K Cheng; John A Windsor; Andrew J Pullan Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: John H Rodriguez; Ivy N Haskins; Andrew T Strong; Ryan L Plescia; Matthew T Allemang; Robert S Butler; Michael S Cline; Kevin El-Hayek; Jeffrey L Ponsky; Matthew D Kroh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Anubhav Agrawal; Sean Lamar Francis; Nicolette Elizabeth Deveneau; Shaily Jain; Christopher Abrasley; Jason Trippe McNeese; Shivangi T Kothari; Christopher J Lahr; Thomas L Abell Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.199