C Mancilla Asencio1, L R Gálvez-Arévalo2, E Tobar Almonacid2, G Landskron-Ramos3, A M Madrid-Silva3. 1. Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: carlitamancilla@yahoo.com. 2. Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 3. Laboratorio de Enfermedades Funcionales Digestivas y Motilidad, Sección de Gastroenterología, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Critically ill patients present with a broad spectrum of gastrointestinal motility disorders that affect the digestive tract. Our aim was to compare the effect of two prokinetic drugs on gastric electrical rhythm in critically ill septic patients, measured through surface electrogastrography (EGG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective triple-blinded randomized study was conducted on 36 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with the diagnosis of septic shock. They were randomized to receive metoclopramide or domperidone. We assessed dominant frequency (DF), percentage distribution over time, and dominant power (DP), which represents the strength of contraction, before and after administration of the study drugs. RESULTS:Reliable electrogastrograms were achieved in all patients. In relation to the distribution of DF over time, 64% of patients had dysrhythmia, the mean baseline DF was 2.9 cpm, and the mean DP was 56.5μv After drug administration, 58% of the patients had dysrhythmia, the mean DF increased to 5.7 cpm (P<.05), and the DP did not change (57.4μv2). There were no significant differences between drugs. In the metoclopramide group, the baseline DF was 2.1 cpm and the baseline DP was 26.1μv2. The post-drug values increased to 5.4 cpm and 34.1μv2, respectively. In the domperidone group, the baseline DF was 3.7 cpm and the baseline DP was 86.9μv2. After drug administration, the DF increased to 6.1 cpm and the DP decreased to 83.5μv2. CONCLUSIONS: Both metoclopramide and domperidone similarly increased the DF of gastric pacemaker activity and improved gastric motility by restoring a normogastric pattern. Gastric dysmotility is frequent in septic patients.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Critically illpatients present with a broad spectrum of gastrointestinal motility disorders that affect the digestive tract. Our aim was to compare the effect of two prokinetic drugs on gastric electrical rhythm in critically ill septicpatients, measured through surface electrogastrography (EGG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective triple-blinded randomized study was conducted on 36 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with the diagnosis of septic shock. They were randomized to receive metoclopramide or domperidone. We assessed dominant frequency (DF), percentage distribution over time, and dominant power (DP), which represents the strength of contraction, before and after administration of the study drugs. RESULTS: Reliable electrogastrograms were achieved in all patients. In relation to the distribution of DF over time, 64% of patients had dysrhythmia, the mean baseline DF was 2.9 cpm, and the mean DP was 56.5μv After drug administration, 58% of the patients had dysrhythmia, the mean DF increased to 5.7 cpm (P<.05), and the DP did not change (57.4μv2). There were no significant differences between drugs. In the metoclopramide group, the baseline DF was 2.1 cpm and the baseline DP was 26.1μv2. The post-drug values increased to 5.4 cpm and 34.1μv2, respectively. In the domperidone group, the baseline DF was 3.7 cpm and the baseline DP was 86.9μv2. After drug administration, the DF increased to 6.1 cpm and the DP decreased to 83.5μv2. CONCLUSIONS: Both metoclopramide and domperidone similarly increased the DF of gastric pacemaker activity and improved gastric motility by restoring a normogastric pattern. Gastric dysmotility is frequent in septic patients.
Keywords:
Electrogastrografía de superficie; Evidence-based medicine; Gastroparesia; Gastroparesis; Medicina basada en evidencia; Procinéticos en pacientes en estado crítico; Prokinetics in the critically ill; Surface electrogastrography