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.

Sacral nerve stimulation can improve continence in patients with Crohn's disease with internal and external anal sphincter disruption.

PURPOSE: Sacral nerve stimulation is a technique commonly used for the treatment of idiopathic incontinence. This study was designed to assess the efficiency of sacral nerve stimulation as a means of treating fecal incontinence in patients with Crohn's disease with disrupted internal and external anal sphincters. METHODS: Five patients (3 women) with fecal incontinence suffering from Crohn's disease-related anoperineal lesions were treated by applying three weeks of sacral nerve stimulation and then by permanent sacral nerve stimulation implantation. Endoanal ultrasonography showed that all of these patients had disrupted external and internal anal sphincters. RESULTS: Continence was improved in all treated patients. The median follow-up time was 14 (range, 3-36) months. At the end of the follow-up period, the median Wexner's score significantly improved from 15 to 6 and the median number of daily stools decreased from 7 to 2. The patients' quality of life also increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral nerve stimulation improves fecal continence in patients suffering from Crohn's anoperineal lesions with internal and external anal sphincters disruption.