Gastric electrical stimulation is safe during pregnancy and delivery: Results from a French cohort.

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is an effective therapy in medically refractory chronic nausea and vomiting. GES is assumed to be a contraindication for pregnancy. We examined the safety of GES during pregnancy and its clinical impact on vomiting symptoms. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in two tertiary centers including all female patients of childbearing age implanted with GES. Patients without pregnancy while on GES were asked about their desire and concerns about pregnancy. Patients who were pregnant while on GES therapy were interviewed about the course of the pregnancy and labor, as well as the health of the children. KEY RESULTS: Among 91 patients implanted at childbearing age, 54 patients without pregnancy answered the questionnaire. Nine patients (16.7%) reported a desire for pregnancy and five patients (7.4%) reported worries about the safety of GES during pregnancy. Sixteen pregnancies were reported in 10 patients. All pregnancies ended in a live birth with premature birth in 12 pregnancies (75.0%). No health concern was currently noted in these children. No severe GES-related complications occurred during pregnancy with only pain at the implantation site reported during 3 pregnancies (18.8%). The severity and frequency of nausea and vomiting significantly increased during the first trimester (p = 0.04 and p = 0.005, respectively) and decreased after the delivery, becoming lower than before the pregnancy (p = 0.044 and p = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSION & INFERENCES: Patients are concerned regarding pregnancy while being treated with GES. No serious maternal or fetal complications related to GES were noted in our cohort.

Impact of Gastric Electrical Stimulation on Economic Burden of Refractory Vomiting: A French Nationwide Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Medico-economic data of patients suffering from chronic nausea and vomiting are lacking. In these patients, gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is an effective, but costly treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety and medico-economic impact of Enterra therapy in patients with chronic medically refractory nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from patients with medically refractory nausea and/or vomiting, implanted with an Enterra device and followed for two years. Gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) score, vomiting frequency, nutritional status and safety were evaluated. Direct and indirect expenditure data were prospectively collected in diaries. RESULTS: Complete clinical data were available for142 patients (60 diabetic, 82 non-diabetic) and medico-economic data were available for 96 patients (36 diabetic, 60 non-diabetic), 24 months after implantation. GIQLI score increased by 12.1 ± 25.0 points (p < .001), with a more significant improvement in non-diabetic than in diabetic patients (+15.8 ± 25.0 points, p < .001 versus 7.3 ± 24.5 points, p = .027, respectively). The proportion of patients vomiting less than once per month increased by 25.5% (p < .001). Hospitalisations, time off work and transport were the main sources of costs. Enterra therapy decreased mean overall healthcare costs from 8873 US$ to 5525 US$ /patient/year (p = .001), representing a saving of 3348 US$ per patient and per year. Savings were greater for diabetic patients (4096 US$ /patient/year) than for non-diabetic patients (2900 US$ /patient/year). CONCLUSIONS: Enterra therapy is an effective, safe and cost-effective option for patients with refractory nausea and vomiting. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT00903799.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation Reduces Refractory Vomiting in a Randomized Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There have been conflicting results from trials of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for treatment of refractory vomiting, associated or not with gastroparesis. We performed a large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial with crossover to study the efficacy of GES in patients with refractory vomiting, with or without gastroparesis. METHODS: For 4 months, we assessed symptoms in 172 patients (66% women; mean age ± standard deviation, 45 ± 12 years; 133 with gastroparesis) with chronic (>12 months) of refractory vomiting (idiopathic, associated with a type 1 or 2 diabetes, or postsurgical). A GES device was implanted and left unactivated until patients were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, to groups that received 4 months of stimulation parameters (14 Hz, 5 mA, pulses of 330 µs) or no stimulation (control); 149 patients then crossed over to the other group for 4 months. Patients were examined at the end of each 4-month period (at 5 and 9 months after implantation). Primary endpoints were vomiting score, ranging from 0 (daily vomiting) to 4 (no vomiting), and the quality of life, assessed by the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index scoring system. Secondary endpoints were changes in other digestive symptoms, nutritional status, gastric emptying, and control of diabetes. RESULTS: During both phases of the crossover study, vomiting scores were higher in the group with the device on (median score, 2) than the control group (median score, 1; P < .001), in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Vomiting scores increased significantly when the device was ON in patients with delayed (P < .01) or normal gastric emptying (P = .05). Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the ON period compared with the OFF period. Having the GES turned on was not associated with increased quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized crossover study, we found that GES reduced the frequency of refractory vomiting in patients with and without diabetes, although it did not accelerate gastric emptying or increase of quality of life. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT00903799.

Clinical practice guidelines from the French National Society of Coloproctology in treating chronic constipation.

Chronic constipation is a common symptom that regularly affects the quality of life of adult patients. Its treatment is mainly based on dietary rules, laxative drugs, perineal rehabilitation and surgical treatment. The French National Society of Coloproctology offers clinical practice recommendations on the basis of the data in the current literature, including those on recently developed treatments. Most are noninvasive, and the main concepts include the following: stimulant laxatives are now considered safe drugs and can be more easily prescribed as a second-line treatment; biofeedback therapy remains the gold standard for the treatment of anorectal dyssynergia that is resistant to medical treatment; transanal irrigation is the second-line treatment of choice in patients with neurological diseases, but it may also be proposed for patients without neurological diseases; and although interferential therapy may be a new promising treatment, it needs further evaluation.

Gastrointestinal Peptides During Chronic Gastric Electrical Stimulation in Patients With Intractable Vomiting.

OBJECTIVES: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is an alternative therapy to treat patients with intractable vomiting. A preclinical study has demonstrated the modulation of the gastrointestinal (GI) peptide ghrelin by GES but such mechanism has never been investigated in patients. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of GES on GI peptide levels in patients with intractable vomiting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients were randomized to receive either ON or OFF GES, 14 completed the study (10 ON, 4 OFF stimulation). Vomiting episodes, gastric emptying, and gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) were assessed. Gastric and blood samples were collected before and four months after the ON period of gastric stimulation. mRNA and/or peptide levels were assessed in gastric biopsies for ghrelin, leptin, and NUCB2/nesfatin-1 and in duodenal biopsies for glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY) using RT-qPCR and multiplex technology. Ghrelin, leptin, GLP-1, PYY, gastric inhibitory peptide (GIP), and NUCB2/nesfatin-1 levels also were quantified in blood samples. RESULTS: Among clinical parameters, vomiting episodes were slightly reduced by GES (p = 0.09). In tissue, mRNA or protein levels were not modified following chronic GES. In blood, a significant reduction of postprandial PYY levels (p < 0.05) was observed at M4 and a reduction of NUCB2/nesfatin-1 levels in fasted patients (p < 0.05). Increased plasma leptin levels after GES were correlated with reduction of vomiting and improvement of GIQLI. CONCLUSIONS: GES reduces NUCB2/nesfatin-1 levels under fasting conditions and postprandial PYY levels in patients suffering from nausea and/or vomiting refractory to pharmacological therapies.

Consequences of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth in Obese Patients Before and After Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) has been described in obese patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the prevalence and consequences of SIBO in obese patients before and after bariatric surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From October 2001 to July 2009, in obese patients referred for bariatric surgery (BMI >40 kg/m2 or >35 in association with comorbidities), a glucose hydrogen (H2) breath test (BT) was performed before and/or after either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) or adjustable gastric banding (AGB) to assess the presence of SIBO. Weight loss and serum vitamin concentrations were measured after bariatric surgery while a multivitamin supplement was systematically given. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-eight (mean ± SD) patients who performed a BT before and/or after surgery were included: before surgery, BT was positive in 15.4 % (55/357). After surgery, BT was positive in 10 % (2/20) of AGB and 40 % (26/65) of RYGBP (p < 0.001 compared to preoperative situation). After RYGBP, patients with positive BT had similar vitamin levels, a lower caloric intake (983 ± 337 vs. 1271 ± 404 kcal/day, p = 0.014) but a significant lower weight loss (29.7 ± 5.6 vs. 37.7 ± 12.9 kg, p = 0.002) and lower percent of total weight loss (25.6 ± 6.0 vs. 29.2 ± 6.9 %, p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: In this study, SIBO is present in 15 % of obese patients before bariatric surgery. This prevalence does not increase after AGB while it rises up to 40 % of patients after RYGBP and it is associated with lower weight loss.

Iterative cytoreductive surgery associated with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin with or without liver metastases.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of an aggressive strategy in patients presenting peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from colorectal cancer with or without liver metastases (LMs) treated with cytoreductive surgery (CS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The population included 43 patients who had 54 CS+HIPEC for colorectal PC from 1996 to 2006. Sixteen patients (37%) presented LMs. Eleven patients (25%) presented occlusion at the time of PC diagnosis. Ascites was present in 12 patients (28%). Seventy-seven percent of the patients were Gilly 3 (diffuse nodules, 5-20 mm) and Gilly 4 (diffuse nodules>20 mm). The main endpoints were morbidity, mortality, completeness of cancer resection (CCR), and actuarial survival rates. RESULTS: The CS was considered as CCR-0 (no residual nodules) or CCR-1 (residual nodules <5 mm) in 30 patients (70%). Iterative procedures were performed in 26% of patients. Three patients had prior to CS + HIPEC, 10 had concomitant minor liver resection, and 3 had differed liver resections (2 right hepatectomies) 2 months after CS + HIPEC. The mortality rate was 2.3% (1 patient). Seventeen patients (39%) presented one or multiple complications (per procedure morbidity = 31%). Complications included deep abscess (n = 6), wound infection (n = 5), pleural effusion (n = 5), digestive fistula (n = 4), delayed gastric emptying syndrome (n = 4), and renal failure (n = 3). Two patients (3.6%) were reoperated. The median survival was 38.4 months (CI, 32.8-43.9). Actuarial 2- and 4-year survival rates were 72% and 44%, respectively. The survival rates were not significantly different between patients who had CS + HIPEC for PC alone (including the primary resection) versus those who had associated LMs resection (median survival, 35.3 versus 36.0 months, P = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Iterative CS + HIPEC is an effective treatment in PC from colorectal cancer. The presence of resectable LMs associated with PC does not contraindicate the prospect of an oncologic treatment in these patients.