Effects on gastrointestinal transit and antroduodenojejunal manometry after gut-directed hypnotherapy in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

BACKGROUND: Gut-directed hypnotherapy is an effective treatment in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) but little is known about the mechanisms of action. In this study we aimed to investigate the effects on gastrointestinal motility when treating IBS with gut-directed hypnotherapy. METHODS: We randomized 90 patients with IBS, refractory to standard management to receive gut-directed hypnotherapy 1 h/week for 12 weeks or supportive treatment for the same time period. Eighty-one subjects (40 hypnotherapy, 41 controls) could be evaluated by one or more of the following investigations, both before and after the intervention: gastric emptying time, small bowel transit time, colonic transit time, and antroduodenojejunal manometry. RESULTS: No significant differences in gastric emptying time, small bowel transit time, or colonic transit time was found when comparing the baseline and post-intervention measurements in the hypnotherapy group or in the control group. The same was true concerning the results of the antroduodenojejunal manometry. However, there was a numerical trend toward a higher number of migrating motor complexes at manometry and an accelerated gastric emptying time after hypnotherapy that did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we were not able to find evidence for long-standing effects on gastrointestinal motility as a mediator of the effects on IBS when treating the condition with gut-directed hypnotherapy. Further research to understand the mechanism of action is needed.

Long-term effects of hypnotherapy in patients with refractory irritable bowel syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Gut-directed hypnotherapy is considered to be an effective treatment in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) but few studies report the long-term effects. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the long-term perceived efficacy of gut-directed hypnotherapy given outside highly specialized hypnotherapy centers. METHODS: 208 patients, who all had received gut-directed hypnotherapy, were retrospectively evaluated. The Subjective Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to measure changes in IBS symptoms, and patients were classified as responders and non-responders. Patients were also asked to report changes in health-care seeking, use of drugs for IBS symptoms, use of alternative non-pharmacological treatments, and if they still actively used hypnotherapy. RESULTS: Immediately after hypnotherapy, 103 of 208 patients (49%) were responders and 75 of these (73%) had improved further at the follow-up 2-7 years after hypnotherapy (mean 4 years). A majority of the responders still used hypnotherapy on a regular basis at follow-up (73%), and the responders reported a greater reduction in health-care seeking than non-responders. A total of 87% of all patients reported that they considered gut-directed hypnotherapy to be worthwhile, and this differed between responders and non-responders (100% vs. 74%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This long-term follow-up study indicates that gut-directed hypnotherapy in refractory IBS is an effective treatment option with long-lasting effects, also when given outside highly specialized hypnotherapy centers. Apart from the clinical benefits, the reduction in health-care utilization has the potential to reduce the health-care costs.

Effects of gut-directed hypnotherapy on IBS in different clinical settings-results from two randomized, controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Gut-directed hypnotherapy has been found to be effective in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, randomized, controlled studies are rare and few have been performed outside highly specialized research centers. The objective of this study was to study the effect of gut-directed hypnotherapy in IBS in different clinical settings outside the traditional research units. METHODS: The study population included IBS patients refractory to standard management. In study 1, patients were randomized to receive gut-directed hypnotherapy (12 sessions, 1 h/week) in psychology private practices or supportive therapy, whereas patients were randomized to receive gut-directed hypnotherapy in a small county hospital or to serve as waiting list controls in study 2. Gastrointestinal symptom severity and quality of life were evaluated at baseline, at 3 months follow-up and after 1 year. RESULTS: We randomized 138 IBS patients refractory to standard management, 90 in study 1 and 48 in study 2. In both the studies, IBS-related symptoms were improved at 3 months in the gut-directed hypnotherapy groups (P<0.05), but not in the control groups (ns). In study 1, a significantly greater improvement of IBS-related symptom severity could be detected in the gut-directed hypnotherapy group than in the control group (P<0.05), and a trend in the same direction was seen in study 2 (P=0.17). The results seen at 3 months were sustained up to 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Gut-directed hypnotherapy is an effective treatment alternative for patients with refractory IBS, but the effectiveness is lower when the therapy is given outside the highly specialized research centers.

Temporary percutaneous and permanent gastric electrical stimulation in children younger than 3 years with chronic vomiting.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to investigate whether young children with drug-refractory nausea and vomiting can be treated with gastric electrical stimulation (GES) in a similar way as adults and to evaluate whether temporary percutaneous gastric electrical stimulation (TPGES) can be used in the pediatric population to select the patients who are responders to GES treatment. We report the clinical results in 3 children between 2 and 3 years of age. To the best of our knowledge, these are the youngest patients treated with GES. METHODS: Three patients younger than 3 years with intractable vomiting underwent TPGES. Custom-made leads were percutaneously implanted in the gastric wall under gastroscopic guidance. Symptoms were recorded daily during the TPGES stimulation time (12-40 days). Responders were offered permanent GES treatment. RESULTS: There were no technical problems. All 3 patients were responders to TPGES. They are now treated with surgically implanted permanent GES and reported greater than 50% vomiting reduction at last visit. CONCLUSION: Children younger than 3 years can be treated with GES in a similar way as adolescents and adults. Temporary percutaneous GES is a safe, feasible technique even in small children, with the possibility to perform the test over several weeks to select responders to GES treatment.

A slow caloric satiety drinking test in patients with temporary and permanent gastric electrical stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Improvement of gastric accommodation has been proposed as a potential explanation for the positive effect of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) on nausea/vomiting. A drinking test has been suggested as a noninvasive measure of gastric accommodation capacity. METHODS: Eight patients with therapy refractory nausea and vomiting and nonapproved diagnosis for GES (chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIP, n=1), functional dyspepsia (FD, n=3), postsurgical gastroparesis (PSGP, n=4) underwent temporary percutaneous GES for 10-14 days, randomized to stimulation ON or OFF, respectively. 19 patients [CIP (n=1), diabetic gastroparesis (n=5), FD (n=5), idiopathic gastroparesis (n=4), PSGP (n=4)] received permanent GES (Enterra, Medtronic) (follow-up at baseline, 6 and 12 months). At the end of each stimulation period a slow caloric satiety drinking test was performed (Nutridrink 1.5 kcal/ml, 15 ml/min). RESULTS: Healthy volunteers had higher drinking capacity compared to patients at baseline (1630 + or - 496 kcal vs. 887 + or - 412; P<0.001) and less composite symptom score (128 + or - 51 vs. 235 + or - 83; P<0.001). With temporary percutaneous GES, there was no significant change in drinking capacity during stimulation ON versus OFF (746 + or - 383 vs. 734 + or - 427 kcal) and symptom severity at the drinking test was unchanged. For patients having permanent GES there was no significant difference at 6 months (876 + or - 277 kcal) versus baseline, and no difference between symptomatic responders and nonresponders in change in drinking capacity (P=0.7). CONCLUSION: GES had no effect on proximal gastric function as evaluated by the slow caloric satiety drinking test. This seems to be the case for patients with approved as well as nonapproved indications for GES, and irrespective of the symptomatic response.

Severe gastroparesis: new treatment alternatives.

Dopamine antagonists, such as metoclopramide and domperidone, and the motilin receptor agonist erythromycin have been the cornerstones in drug treatment of severe gastroparesis for more than a decade. No new drugs have been approved for treatment of this disorder in this period. Instead, the 5-HT4 agonist cisapride has been withdrawn due to side-effects. The effectiveness of intrapyloric botulinum toxin for gastroparesis remains to be shown. In the last decade, gastric electrical stimulation (GES) with a fully implantable device has evolved as a promising treatment, with significant effects on nausea and vomiting in most patients with severe, drug-refractory diabetic gastroparesis and postsurgical gastroparesis. A proportion of patients with severe idiopathic gastroparesis and patients with idiopathic nausea and vomiting also respond. More research is needed to achieve precise selection of responders/non-responders to GES, and to study the potential benefit of GES in other patient groups suffering from severe nausea or vomiting.

Treatment with hypnotherapy reduces the sensory and motor component of the gastrocolonic response in irritable bowel syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Postprandial symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome are common and relate to an exaggerated motor and sensory component of the gastrocolonic response. We investigated whether this response can be affected by hypnotherapy. METHODS: We included 28 patients with irritable bowel syndrome refractory to other treatments. They were randomized to receive gut-directed hypnotherapy 1 hour per week for 12 weeks (N = 14) or were provided with supportive therapy (control group; N = 14). Before randomization and after 3 months, all patients underwent a colonic distension trial before and after a 1-hour duodenal lipid infusion. Colonic sensory thresholds and tonic and phasic motor activity were assessed. RESULTS: Before randomization, reduced thresholds after vs. before lipid infusion were seen in both groups for all studied sensations. At 3 months, the colonic sensitivity before duodenal lipids did not differ between groups. Controls reduced their thresholds after duodenal lipids for gas (22 +/- 1.7 mm Hg vs. 16 +/- 1.6 mm Hg, p <.01), discomfort (29 +/- 2.9 mm Hg vs. 22 +/- 2.6 mm Hg, p <.01), and pain (33 +/- 2.7 mm Hg vs. 26 +/- 3.3 mm Hg, p <.01), whereas the hypnotherapy group reduced their thresholds after lipids only for pain (35 +/- 4.0 mm Hg vs. 29 +/- 4.7 mm Hg, p <.01). The colonic balloon volumes and tone response at randomization were similar in both groups. At 3 months, baseline balloon volumes were lower in the hypnotherapy group than in controls (83 +/- 14 ml vs. 141 +/- 15 ml, p <.01). In the control group, reduced balloon volumes during lipid infusion were seen (141 +/- 15 ml vs. 111 +/- 19 ml, p <.05), but not after hypnotherapy (83 +/- 14 ml vs. 80 +/- 16 ml, p >.20). CONCLUSION: Hypnotherapy reduces the sensory and motor component of the gastrocolonic response in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. These effects may be involved in the clinical efficacy of hypnotherapy in IBS.

Gastric electrical stimulation for medically refractory gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study investigated the efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation for the treatment of symptomatic gastroparesis unresponsive to standard medical therapy. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with chronic gastroparesis (17 diabetic and 16 idiopathic) received continuous high-frequency/low-energy gastric electrical stimulation via electrodes in the muscle wall of the antrum connected to a neurostimulator in an abdominal wall pocket. After implantation, patients were randomized in a double-blind crossover design to stimulation ON or OFF for 1-month periods. The blind was then broken, and all patients were programmed to stimulation ON and evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Outcome measures were vomiting frequency, preference for ON or OFF, upper gastrointestinal tract symptoms, quality of life, gastric emptying, and adverse events. RESULTS: In the double-blind portion of the study, self-reported vomiting frequency was significantly reduced in the ON vs. OFF period (P < 0.05) and this symptomatic improvement was consistent with the significant patient preference (P < 0.05) for the ON vs. OFF period determined before breaking the blind. In the unblinded portion of the study, vomiting frequency decreased significantly (P < 0.05) at 6 and 12 months. Scores for symptom severity and quality of life significantly improved (P < 0.05) at 6 and 12 months, whereas gastric emptying was only modestly accelerated. Five patients had their gastric electrical stimulation system explanted or revised because of infection or other complications. CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency/low-energy gastric electrical stimulation significantly decreased vomiting frequency and gastrointestinal symptoms and improved quality of life in patients with severe gastroparesis.

Gastric electrical stimulation in intractable symptomatic gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of gastroparesis remains unsatisfactory despite prokinetic and anti-emetic drugs. Gastric electrical stimulation has been proposed as a therapeutic option. We have assessed the effect of gastric electrical stimulation on symptoms, medical treatment, body weight and gastric emptying in patients with intractable symptomatic gastroparesis in a non-placebo-controlled study. METHODS: In this multicenter study, 38 highly symptomatic patients with drug-refractory gastroparesis were enrolled. Patients first received temporary electrical stimulation using percutaneous electrodes. The 33 responders to temporary stimulation then underwent surgical implantation of a permanent stimulator. Severity of vomiting and nausea was assessed before and after stimulation. Patients were reassessed 3, 6, and 12 months after permanent implantation. RESULTS: With stimulation, 35/38 patients (97%) experienced >80% reduction in vomiting and nausea. This effect persisted throughout the observation period (2.9-15.6 months, 341 patient-months). Gastric emptying did not initially change, but improved in most patients at 12 months. At 1 year, the average weight gain was 5.5% and 9/14 patients initially receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition were able to discontinue it. CONCLUSION: Electrical stimulation of the stomach has an immediate and potent anti-emetic effect. It offers a safe and effective alternative for patients with intractable symptomatic gastroparesis.