Klaus Bielefeldt1. 1. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Division of Gastroenterology, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States. Electronic address: bielefeldtk@upmc.edu.
Abstract
The role of gastric electrical stimulation for patients with refractory symptoms of gastroparesis remains controversial. Open label studies suggest benefit while randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate differences between active and sham intervention. Using a voluntary reporting system of the Federal Drug Administration, we examined the type and frequency of adverse events. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the Manufacturer and User Device Experience (MAUDE) databank using the keyword 'Enterra' for the time between January of 2001 and October of 2015. We abstracted information about the year of stimulator implantation, the year and type of adverse effect, the resulting intervention and outcome if available. RESULTS: A total of 1587 entries described adverse effects related the GES. Only 36 of the reports listed perioperative complications. The vast majority described problems that could be classified as patient concerns, local complications, or system failure. The most common problem related lack or loss of efficacy, followed by pain or complications affecting the pocket site. A subset of 801 reports provided information about the time between system implant and registration of concerns, which gradually declined over time. More than one third (35.7%) of the reported adverse events prompted surgical correction. CONCLUSION: The number of voluntarily reported adverse events and the high likelihood of repeated surgical interventions clearly demonstrate the potential downside of gastric electrical stimulation. Physicians considering this intervention will need to carefully weigh these risks and include this information when counseling or consenting patients.
The role of gastric electrical stimulation for patients with refractory symptoms of gastroparesis remains controversial. Open label studies suggest benefit while randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate differences between active and sham intervention. Using a voluntary reporting system of the Federal Drug Administration, we examined the type and frequency of adverse events. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the Manufacturer and User Device Experience (MAUDE) databank using the keyword 'Enterra' for the time between January of 2001 and October of 2015. We abstracted information about the year of stimulator implantation, the year and type of adverse effect, the resulting intervention and outcome if available. RESULTS: A total of 1587 entries described adverse effects related the GES. Only 36 of the reports listed perioperative complications. The vast majority described problems that could be classified as patient concerns, local complications, or system failure. The most common problem related lack or loss of efficacy, followed by pain or complications affecting the pocket site. A subset of 801 reports provided information about the time between system implant and registration of concerns, which gradually declined over time. More than one third (35.7%) of the reported adverse events prompted surgical correction. CONCLUSION: The number of voluntarily reported adverse events and the high likelihood of repeated surgical interventions clearly demonstrate the potential downside of gastric electrical stimulation. Physicians considering this intervention will need to carefully weigh these risks and include this information when counseling or consenting patients.
Authors: Roman V Petrov; Charles T Bakhos; Abbas E Abbas; Zubair Malik; Henry P Parkman Journal: Gastroenterol Clin North Am Date: 2020-06-20 Impact factor: 3.806