Literature DB >> 25975330

Gastric electrical stimulation for refractory gastroparesis: predictors of response and redefining a successful outcome.

Bryan Richmond1, Benny Chong, Asmita Modak, Mary Emmett, Kimball Knackstedt, Benjamin Dyer, Zachary AbuRahma.   

Abstract

Predictors of a favorable response and measures of success with gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for gastroparesis remain elusive. Published results remain inconsistent with respect to patient perceived benefit, despite statistical improvements in objective measures of symptom severity. We performed a retrospective analysis of 56 patients with gastroparesis who underwent insertion of a gastric electrical stimulator during the study period. Data included demographics, symptoms, total symptom severity score (TSS, range 0-24, initial and most recent), and gastric emptying times. TSS were grouped into four severity categories (0-10, 11-14, 15-18, 19-24). TSS improvement was defined as movement to a lower severity category. Perception of improvement was compared with that of TSS score improvement using χ(2) test. Etiology as a predictor of improvement was measured using logistic regression. Initial mean TSS was 21, and post-treatment TSS was 13.5. Improvement was significant for individual symptoms and in reduction of TSS for both diabetic/idiopathic etiologies (P ≤ 0.001). No correlation was noted between likelihood of success/failure and gastric emptying times (P = 0.32). Thirty-eight improved (moved to lower TSS category), whereas 18 failed (remained in same category) (P ≤ 0.001), which correlated with perception of improvement. Of 18 failures, 14 (77.7%) were idiopathic. On logistic regression, diabetics were more likely than idiopathic patients to move to a lower TSS category (odds ratio 14, P = 0.003) and even more likely to improve based on patient perception (odds ratio 45, P = 0.005). GES produces far more consistent improvement in diabetics. Further study of GES in idiopathic gastroparesis is needed. Application of the proposed TSS severity categories allowed differentiation of small, statistically significant (but clinically insignificant) reductions in TSS from larger, clinically significant reductions, thereby permitting more reliable application of TSS to the evaluation of GES efficacy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25975330      PMCID: PMC4659350     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Surg        ISSN: 0003-1348            Impact factor:   0.688


  14 in total

1.  Gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis.

Authors:  Fred Brody; Khashayar Vaziri; Antoinette Saddler; Aamir Ali; Elizabeth Drenon; Brook Hanna; Esma Akin; Florencia Gonzalez; Edy Soffer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Unfulfilled wishes by gastric electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Vincenzo Stanghellini
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 11.382

3.  Treatment of diabetic gastroparesis by high-frequency gastric electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Zhiyue Lin; Jameson Forster; Irene Sarosiek; Richard W McCallum
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 19.112

4.  Pre-operative gastric emptying time correlates with clinical response to gastric electrical stimulation in the treatment of gastroparesis.

Authors:  P M O'Loughlin; A D Gilliam; F Shaban; J S Varma
Journal:  Surgeon       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.392

5.  Gastric electrical stimulation for medically refractory gastroparesis.

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

6.  Gastric electrical stimulation is an effective and safe treatment for medically refractory gastroparesis.

Authors:  Daniel McKenna; Gretchen Beverstein; Mark Reichelderfer; Eric Gaumnitz; Jon Gould
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation for the treatment of gastroparesis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gregory O'Grady; John U Egbuji; Peng Du; Leo K Cheng; Andrew J Pullan; John A Windsor
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  An energy algorithm improves symptoms in some patients with gastroparesis and treated with gastric electrical stimulation.

Authors:  N Abidi; W L Starkebaum; T L Abell
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.598

9.  Gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis improves nutritional parameters at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Thomas Abell; Jean Lou; Mumtaz Tabbaa; Oscar Batista; Scott Malinowski; Amar Al-Juburi
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.016

10.  Gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis.

Authors:  Edy E Soffer
Journal:  J Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 4.924

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Gastric Electrical Stimulation: Role and Clinical Impact on Chronic Nausea and Vomiting.

Authors:  Heithem Soliman; Guillaume Gourcerol
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 5.152

2.  Neuroenteric Stimulation for Gastroparesis.

Authors:  Brian E Lacy
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-12

3.  Long-Pulse Gastric Electrical Stimulation Repairs Interstitial Cells of Cajal and Smooth Muscle Cells in the Gastric Antrum of Diabetic Rats.

Authors:  Yan Chen; Hongcai Wang; Hai Li; Shi Liu
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 2.260

4.  Gastric Electric Stimulation for Refractory Gastroparesis.

Authors:  Bryan Zoll; Asad Jehangir; Zubair Malik; Michael A Edwards; Roman V Petrov; Henry P Parkman
Journal:  J Clin Outcomes Manag       Date:  2019-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.