Effectiveness of gastric electrical stimulation in gastroparesis: Results from a large prospectively collected database of national gastroparesis registries
Abell, Thomas L.; Yamada, Goro; McCallum, Richard W.; Van Natta, Mark L.; Tonascia, James; Parkman, Henry P.; Koch, Kenneth L.; Sarosiek, Irene; Farrugia, Gianrico; Grover, Madhusudan; Hasler, William; Nguyen, Linda; Snape, William; Kuo, Braden; Shulman, Robert; Hamilton, Frank A.; Pasricha, Pankaj J.
2019-12
Citation
Abell, Thomas L.; Yamada, Goro; McCallum, Richard W.; Van Natta, Mark L.; Tonascia, James; Parkman, Henry P.; Koch, Kenneth L.; Sarosiek, Irene; Farrugia, Gianrico; Grover, Madhusudan; Hasler, William; Nguyen, Linda; Snape, William; Kuo, Braden; Shulman, Robert; Hamilton, Frank A.; Pasricha, Pankaj J. (2019). "Effectiveness of gastric electrical stimulation in gastroparesis: Results from a large prospectively collected database of national gastroparesis registries." Neurogastroenterology & Motility 31(12): n/a-n/a.
Abstract
BackgroundGastric electrical stimulation (GES) for treating gastroparesis symptoms is controversial.MethodsWe studied 319 idiopathic or diabetic gastroparesis symptom patients from the Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium (GpCRC) observational studies: 238 without GES and 81 with GES. We assessed the effects of GES using change in GCSI total score and nausea/vomiting subscales between baseline and 48 weeks. We used propensity score methods to control for imbalances in patient characteristics between comparison groups.Key ResultsGES patients were clinically worse (40% severe vs. 18% for non‐GES; P < .001); worse PAGI‐QOL (2.2. vs. 2.6; P = .003); and worse GCSI total scores (3.5 vs. 2.8; P < .001). We observed improvements in 48‐week GCSI total scores for GES vs. non‐GES: improvement by ≥ 1‐point (RR = 1.63; 95% CI = (1.14, 2.33); P = .01) and change from enrollment (difference = −0.5 (−0.8, −0.3); P < .001). When adjusting for patient characteristics, symptom scores were smaller and not statistically significant: improvement by ≥ 1‐point (RR = 1.29 (0.88, 1.90); P = .20) and change from the enrollment (difference = −0.3 (−0.6, 0.0); P = .07). Of the individual items, the nausea improved by ≥ 1 point (RR = 1.31 (1.03, 1.67); P = .04). Patients with GCSI score ≥ 3.0 tended to improve more than those with score < 3.0. (Adjusted P = 0.02).Conclusions and InferencesThis multicenter study of gastroparesis patients found significant improvements in gastroparesis symptoms among GES patients. Accounting for imbalances in patient characteristics, only nausea remained significant. Patients with greater symptoms at baseline improved more after GES. A much larger sample of patients is needed to fully evaluate symptomatic responses and to identify patients likely to respond to GES.Patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis who received gastric electrical stimulation were clinically worse at baseline and improved at 48‐week follow‐up although only the nausea component remained significant after accounting for baseline patient characteristics. Patients who received gastric electrical stimulation and who were clinically worse at baseline had better outcomes than those not as ill.Publisher
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health
ISSN
1350-1925 1365-2982
Other DOIs
Types
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.