L A Bradshaw1,2,3, L K Cheng1,4, E Chung1, C B Obioha1, J C Erickson2,5, B L Gorman3, S Somarajan1,2, W O Richards6. 1. Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. Department of Physics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Department of Physics, Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Department of Physics-Engineering, Washington & Lee University, Lexington, VA, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis is characterized by delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction, but remains difficult to diagnose and distinguish from other gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Gastroparesis affects the gastric slow wave, but non-invasive assessment has been limited to the electrogastrogram (EGG), which reliably characterizes temporal dynamics but does not provide spatial information. METHODS: We measured gastric slow wave parameters from the EGG and magnetogastrogram (MGG) in patients with gastroparesis and in healthy controls. In addition to dominant frequency (DF) and percentage power distribution (PPD), we measured the propagation velocity from MGG spatiotemporal patterns and the percentage of slow wave coupling (%SWC) from EGG. KEY RESULTS: No significant difference in DF was found between patients and controls. Gastroparesis patients had lower percentages of normogastric frequencies (60 ± 6% vs 78 ± 4%, p < 0.05), and higher brady (9 ± 2% vs 2 ± 1%, p < 0.05) and tachygastric (31 ± 2% vs 19 ± 1%, p < 0.05) frequency content postprandial, indicative of uncoupling. Propagation patterns were substantially different in patients and longitudinal propagation velocity was retrograde at 4.3 ± 2.9 mm/s vs anterograde at 7.4 ± 1.0 mm/s for controls (p < 0.01). No difference was found in %SWC from EGG. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Gastric slow wave parameters obtained from MGG recordings distinguish gastroparesis patients from controls. Assessment of slow wave propagation may prove critical to characterization of underlying disease processes. Future studies should determine pathologic indicators from MGG associated with other functional gastric disorders, and whether multichannel EGG with appropriate signal processing also reveals pathology.
BACKGROUND:Gastroparesis is characterized by delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction, but remains difficult to diagnose and distinguish from other gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Gastroparesis affects the gastric slow wave, but non-invasive assessment has been limited to the electrogastrogram (EGG), which reliably characterizes temporal dynamics but does not provide spatial information. METHODS: We measured gastric slow wave parameters from the EGG and magnetogastrogram (MGG) in patients with gastroparesis and in healthy controls. In addition to dominant frequency (DF) and percentage power distribution (PPD), we measured the propagation velocity from MGG spatiotemporal patterns and the percentage of slow wave coupling (%SWC) from EGG. KEY RESULTS: No significant difference in DF was found between patients and controls. Gastroparesispatients had lower percentages of normogastric frequencies (60 ± 6% vs 78 ± 4%, p < 0.05), and higher brady (9 ± 2% vs 2 ± 1%, p < 0.05) and tachygastric (31 ± 2% vs 19 ± 1%, p < 0.05) frequency content postprandial, indicative of uncoupling. Propagation patterns were substantially different in patients and longitudinal propagation velocity was retrograde at 4.3 ± 2.9 mm/s vs anterograde at 7.4 ± 1.0 mm/s for controls (p < 0.01). No difference was found in %SWC from EGG. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Gastric slow wave parameters obtained from MGG recordings distinguish gastroparesispatients from controls. Assessment of slow wave propagation may prove critical to characterization of underlying disease processes. Future studies should determine pathologic indicators from MGG associated with other functional gastric disorders, and whether multichannel EGG with appropriate signal processing also reveals pathology.
Authors: A E Bharucha; A Manduca; D S Lake; J Fidler; P Edwards; R C Grimm; A R Zinsmeister; S J Riederer Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Pankaj J Pasricha; Ryan Colvin; Katherine Yates; William L Hasler; Thomas L Abell; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Linda Nguyen; Gianrico Farrugia; Kenneth L Koch; Henry P Parkman; William J Snape; Linda Lee; James Tonascia; Frank Hamilton Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Henry P Parkman; Katherine Yates; William L Hasler; Linda Nguyen; Pankaj J Pasricha; William J Snape; Gianrico Farrugia; Kenneth L Koch; Jorge Calles; Thomas L Abell; Richard W McCallum; Linda Lee; Aynur Unalp-Arida; James Tonascia; Frank Hamilton Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Madhusudan Grover; Gianrico Farrugia; Matthew S Lurken; Cheryl E Bernard; Maria Simonetta Faussone-Pellegrini; Thomas C Smyrk; Henry P Parkman; Thomas L Abell; William J Snape; William L Hasler; Aynur Ünalp-Arida; Linda Nguyen; Kenneth L Koch; Jorges Calles; Linda Lee; James Tonascia; Frank A Hamilton; Pankaj J Pasricha Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jonathan C Erickson; Chibuike Obioha; Adam Goodale; L Alan Bradshaw; William O Richards Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Suseela Somarajan; Nicole D Muszynski; Dilovan Hawrami; Joseph D Olson; Leo K Cheng; Leonard A Bradshaw Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Suseela Somarajan; Nicole D Muszynski; Joseph D Olson; Leonard A Bradshaw; William O Richards Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Salah A Baker; Sung Jin Hwang; Peter J Blair; Carlee Sireika; Lai Wei; Seungil Ro; Sean M Ward; Kenton M Sanders Journal: Cell Calcium Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 6.817
Authors: Chad E Eichler; Leo K Cheng; Niranchan Paskaranandavadivel; Peng Du; Leonard A Bradshaw; Recep Avci Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Alexis B Allegra; Armen A Gharibans; Gabriel E Schamberg; David C Kunkel; Todd P Coleman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Suseela Somarajan; Nicole D Muszynski; Joseph D Olson; Andrew Comstock; Alexandra C Russell; Lynn S Walker; Sari A Acra; Leonard A Bradshaw Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Peng Du; Stefan Calder; Timothy R Angeli; Shameer Sathar; Niranchan Paskaranandavadivel; Gregory O'Grady; Leo K Cheng Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 4.566