Hamza Shah1, Gregg Wendorf1, Shifat Ahmed1, Lindsay McElmurray1, Chris Lahr2, Michael Hughes1, Brian Beauerle1, Ed Miller1, Abigail Stocker1, Thomas L Abell3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Louisville, 550 S Jackson Street, ACB3 A3L15, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. 2. University of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Louisville, 550 S Jackson Street, ACB3 A3L15, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. thomas.abell@louisville.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Malignancy-associated gastroparesis (MAG) is a cause of morbidity in cancer patients but therapies are lacking. Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a novel treatment for MAG. Here, we describe 19 patients with MAG who underwent temporary GES placement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients (6 males, 13 females) with various malignancies were reviewed for symptom scores and physiologic measures at baseline and after temporary GES placement. Symptoms were scored by three variables: nausea (N), vomiting (V), and GI total symptom score (TSS). Physiologic profiles were measured by solid and liquid phase gastric emptying scans (GET) at 1, 2, and 4 h and cutaneous electrogastrogram (EGG) and mucosal electrogram (EG) frequencies. Symptoms were measured for 5 days after temporary endoscopic GES placement, and measures were repeated post GES placement. RESULTS: Baseline GET results displayed delayed gastric emptying in 16 of 19 patients (mean solid retention 21.7 % at 4 h, normal <10 %; mean liquid retention 10.4 % at 4 h, normal <5 %). Cutaneous EGG (mean frequency 5.5 cpm) and EG (mean proximal frequency 5.1 cpm; mean distal frequency 5.1 cpm) showed evidence of neuromuscular dysfunction (normal 2.5-3.3 cpm). Symptom scores in N, V, and TSS showed statistically significant reduction after GES placement. CONCLUSION: A small sample of patients with MAG and receiving temporary GES experienced symptom improvement, with less change on gastric emptying time or gastric electrical amplitude or frequency. GES may provide a potential therapeutic option for symptomatic management of MAG and evaluation of these MAG patients after permanent GES placement is ongoing. Prospective studies of MAG using temporary and permanent GES may be warranted.
PURPOSE:Malignancy-associated gastroparesis (MAG) is a cause of morbidity in cancerpatients but therapies are lacking. Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a novel treatment for MAG. Here, we describe 19 patients with MAG who underwent temporary GES placement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients (6 males, 13 females) with various malignancies were reviewed for symptom scores and physiologic measures at baseline and after temporary GES placement. Symptoms were scored by three variables: nausea (N), vomiting (V), and GI total symptom score (TSS). Physiologic profiles were measured by solid and liquid phase gastric emptying scans (GET) at 1, 2, and 4 h and cutaneous electrogastrogram (EGG) and mucosal electrogram (EG) frequencies. Symptoms were measured for 5 days after temporary endoscopic GES placement, and measures were repeated post GES placement. RESULTS: Baseline GET results displayed delayed gastric emptying in 16 of 19 patients (mean solid retention 21.7 % at 4 h, normal <10 %; mean liquid retention 10.4 % at 4 h, normal <5 %). Cutaneous EGG (mean frequency 5.5 cpm) and EG (mean proximal frequency 5.1 cpm; mean distal frequency 5.1 cpm) showed evidence of neuromuscular dysfunction (normal 2.5-3.3 cpm). Symptom scores in N, V, and TSS showed statistically significant reduction after GES placement. CONCLUSION: A small sample of patients with MAG and receiving temporary GES experienced symptom improvement, with less change on gastric emptying time or gastric electrical amplitude or frequency. GES may provide a potential therapeutic option for symptomatic management of MAG and evaluation of these MAGpatients after permanent GES placement is ongoing. Prospective studies of MAG using temporary and permanent GES may be warranted.
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: Thomas L Abell; William D Johnson; Archana Kedar; J Matthew Runnels; Janelle Thompson; Ernest S Weeks; Anil Minocha; Michael E Griswold Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michael Camilleri; Henry P Parkman; Mehnaz A Shafi; Thomas L Abell; Lauren Gerson Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: G Tougas; E Y Eaker; T L Abell; H Abrahamsson; M Boivin; J Chen; M P Hocking; E M Quigley; K L Koch; A Z Tokayer; V Stanghellini; Y Chen; J D Huizinga; J Rydén; I Bourgeois; R W McCallum Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 10.864
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: Kavitha R Donthireddy; Sikander Ailawadhi; Eiad Nasser; Michael D Schiff; Chukwumere E Nwogu; Hector R Nava; Milind M Javle Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2007-09
Authors: Daniel A Carson; Sameer Bhat; Tommy C L Hayes; Armen A Gharibans; Christopher N Andrews; Gregory O'Grady; Chris Varghese Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Matthew Heckroth; Robert T Luckett; Chris Moser; Dipendra Parajuli; Thomas L Abell Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.174