Shuo Chen1,2, Liang Liu3, Xiaojuan Guo4, Shukun Yao5,6, Yanmei Li7, Shaoxuan Chen1, Yanli Zhang1, Wang Chen8, Yuhui Du9. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China. 2. Graduate School, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, 9th Dong Dan San Tiao, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, 105th Jiefang Road, Lixia District, Jinan, 250013, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Chang Gung Hospital, 168th Litang Road, Changping District, Beijing, 102218, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China. shukunyao@163.com. 6. Graduate School, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, 9th Dong Dan San Tiao, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, People's Republic of China. shukunyao@163.com. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China. yanmei.li@yahoo.com. 8. Institute of Clinical Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China. 9. Rishena Technology Development Co. Ltd., 26th Huashan Middle Road, Xinbei District, Changzhou, 213000, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effects of colonic electrical stimulation (CES) on gastrointestinal transit time (GITT), energy consumption, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake using different individual parameter patterns and stimulation sites. METHODS: Eight beagle dogs underwent surgery and CES. First, CES was conducted to determine the individual parameters with different pulse configurations, based on symptoms. Second, influences on energy consumption and GITT were compared between CES sessions with different pulse configurations. Third, GITT, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake were compared to assess the effects of CES at different stimulation sites. RESULTS: The individual parameters varied greatly among the dogs. In proximal colon electrical stimulation (PCES) and rectosigmoid colon electrical stimulation (RCES), energy consumption was lower with the constant pulse width mode than with the constant pulse amplitude mode (p = 0.012 and p = 0.018, respectively). There was no statistical difference between the two pulse configurations in GITT assessment. The PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions significantly accelerated GITT compared to sham stimulation. There was no statistical difference in GITT between PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions. Compared to sham CES session, RCES and sequential CES sessions exhibited significant higher stool frequency (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), and PCES and RCES sessions inhibited food intake (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Constant pulse width mode is an appropriate pulse configuration for individual CES. At different stimulation sites, CES may exert different effects on stool frequency and food intake. This study provides an experimental basis for the clinical application of CES.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effects of colonic electrical stimulation (CES) on gastrointestinal transit time (GITT), energy consumption, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake using different individual parameter patterns and stimulation sites. METHODS: Eight beagle dogs underwent surgery and CES. First, CES was conducted to determine the individual parameters with different pulse configurations, based on symptoms. Second, influences on energy consumption and GITT were compared between CES sessions with different pulse configurations. Third, GITT, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake were compared to assess the effects of CES at different stimulation sites. RESULTS: The individual parameters varied greatly among the dogs. In proximal colon electrical stimulation (PCES) and rectosigmoid colon electrical stimulation (RCES), energy consumption was lower with the constant pulse width mode than with the constant pulse amplitude mode (p = 0.012 and p = 0.018, respectively). There was no statistical difference between the two pulse configurations in GITT assessment. The PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions significantly accelerated GITT compared to sham stimulation. There was no statistical difference in GITT between PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions. Compared to sham CES session, RCES and sequential CES sessions exhibited significant higher stool frequency (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), and PCES and RCES sessions inhibited food intake (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Constant pulse width mode is an appropriate pulse configuration for individual CES. At different stimulation sites, CES may exert different effects on stool frequency and food intake. This study provides an experimental basis for the clinical application of CES.
Authors: J Vaucher; Y Cerantola; O Gie; I Letovanec; N Virag; N Demartines; J-P Gardaz; J-C R Givel Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Bradley B Barth; Lee Travis; Nick J Spencer; Warren M Grill Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 4.052