Gastroparesis syndromes: Response to electrical stimulation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Factors underlying gastroparesis are not well defined, nor is the mechanism of action of gastric electrical stimulation (GES). We hypothesized that GES acts via several mechanisms related to underlying disordered pathophysiology. METHODS: We studied 43 consecutive eligible patients with gastroparetic symptoms, previously evaluated by two methods in each of five core areas: inflammatory, autonomic, enteric, electrophysiologic, and hormonal; and also categorized by GI symptoms, metabolic status, illness quantification, and gastric physiology. We then studied 41 patients who underwent temporary GES for 5-7 days. Thirty-six of those patients were implanted and 30 were followed up at 6 months after permanent GES. RESULTS: In previous but separately reported work, patients had similar GI symptoms regardless of baseline gastric emptying or diabetic/idiopathic status and all patients demonstrated abnormalities in each of the five areas studied. After GES, patients showed early and late effects of electrical stimulation with changes noted in multiple areas, categorized by improvement status. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptoms of gastroparesis have multiple abnormalities, including systemic inflammation and disordered hormonal status. GES affects many of these abnormalities. We conclude electrical stimulation improves symptoms and physiology with (a) an early and sustained anti-emetic effect; (b) an early and durable gastric prokinetic effect in delayed emptying patients; (c) an early anti-arrhythmic effect that continues over time; (d) a late autonomic effect; (e) a late hormonal effect; (f) an early anti-inflammatory effect that persists; and (g) an early and sustained improvement in health-related quality of life. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under study # NCT03178370 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178370).

The Effect of Gastric Electrical Stimulation on Small Bowel Motility in Patients With Gastroparesis and Concomitant Pancreatic and Small Bowel Dysfunction: From Animal Model to Human Application.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patients with gastroparesis often have biliary/pancreatic and small bowel symptoms but the effects of gastric electrical stimulation on small bowel electrical activity of the mid-gut have not been studied. Animal model aim: Establish gastric and upper small bowel/biliary slow wave activity relationships with electrical stimulation. Human study aim: Demonstrate improvement in symptoms associated with proximal small bowel dysmotility in gastric stimulated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Animal model: In vivo evoked responses of duodenal and Sphincter of Oddi measures recorded during gastric electrical stimulation in a nonsurvival swine model (N = 3). High-resolution electrical slow wave mapping of frequency, amplitude, and their ratio, for duodenal and Sphincter of Oddi electrical activity were recorded. Human study: Patients (N = 8) underwent temporary gastric stimulation with small bowel electrodes. Subjective and objective data was collected before and after temporary gastric stimulation. Symptom scores, gastric emptying times, and mucosal electrograms via low-resolution mapping were recorded. RESULTS: Animal gastric stimulation resulted in some changes in electrical activity parameters, especially with the highest energies delivered but the changes were not statistically significant. Human study revealed improvement in symptom and illness severity scores, and changes in small bowel mucosal slow wave activity. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric electrical stimulation in an animal model seems to show nonsignificant effects small bowel slow wave activity and myoelectric signaling, suggesting the existence of intrinsic neural connections. Human data shows more significance, with possible potential for therapeutic use of electrical stimulation in patients with gastroparesis and pancreato-biliary and small bowel symptoms of the mid-gut. This study was limited by the nonsurvival pig model, small sample size, and open label human study.

Cajal Cell Counts are Important Predictors of Outcomes in Drug Refractory Gastroparesis Patients With Neurostimulation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cajal cells serve as the pacemaker cells of the gastrointestinal tract and regulates peristalsis. On the baisis of that fact, it has been hypothesized that a decrease in Cajal cells can lead to gastroparesis and other motility issues. Treatment with medications has a limited efficacy and most resort to gastric electrical stimulation (GES) devices for symptomatic relief. We believe that the number of Cajal cells present is directly proportional to symptomatic relief with GES. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three (white female) subjects were recruited from the gastric motility clinic University of Mississipi for this study with the criteria of drug refractory gastropersis. Symptoms were measured using Likert scale and gastric emptying times were measured pre-GES and post-GES. Serosal electrogram measurements were recorded during surgical placement of permanent electrical stimulator under various modes. Cajal cell count scoring via immunohistochemistry were performed during the implantaion of the GES. RESULTS: The data were grouped in 2 categories based on the Cajal cells that is ≥2.00 and <2.00. Subjects with higher Cajal cells reported a statiscially improvement in gastroperesis symptoms. Significant differences were also noted in the first hour gastric emptying study. The mean group difference is 17.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-33.58; P=0.035). Serosal amplitude differences were noted being significantly higher in the group with ≥2 cajal cells. CONCLUSIONS: Electrograms obtained after GES demonstrates immediate improvement in gastric electrical activity and gastroparesis symptoms in patients with relatively higher Cajal cell counts when compared with patients with extensive loss of Cajal cells.

Long-term outcomes of gastric electrical stimulation in children with gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) has been used in adults with gastroparesis. However its use has been limited in children. We describe the largest experience with GES in children with long-term outcomes. METHODS: Data were collected on children who underwent GES over a 10-year period. Data regarding demographics, medical history, hospital course, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Symptom scores (validated Likert scores) were compared using a paired Student's t test. RESULTS: Overall, 97 patients underwent GES, and a majority were teenage Caucasian girls. Ninety-six had temporary GES (tGES), and 66 had improvement in their symptoms. A total of 67 underwent permanent implantation (pGES), and there was significant reduction in all individual symptoms (p<0.001) as well as the total symptom score (TSS) (p<0.0001) at 1, 6, 12, and >12 months. Recurrence of symptoms leading to device removal occurred in 7 cases. Forty-one patients had continued improvement in symptoms for over 12 months, with a mean follow-up of 3.5 years (range 1-9 years). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest experience of systematic application of GES in children. GES is a safe and effective therapy for selected children with intractable GP with continued symptomatic improvement at 1 year and beyond.

Gastric electrical stimulation for abdominal pain in patients with symptoms of gastroparesis.

Abdominal pain physiology may be better understood studying electrophysiology, histology, and symptom scores in patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis (Gp) treated with gastric electrical stimulation (GES). Ninety-five Gp patients' symptoms were recorded at baseline and during temporary and permanent GES. Gastric-emptying times and cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal electrogastrograms were obtained. S100-stained, full-thickness gastric biopsies were compared with autopsy controls. Sixty-eight patients reported severe pain at baseline. Severe pain patients' mean pain scores decreased with temporary GES from 3.62 to 1.29 (P < 0.001) and nonsevere pain from 1.26 to 0.67 (P = 0.01). With permanent GES, severe mean pain scores fell to 2.30 (P < 0.001); nonsevere pain changed to 1.60 (P = 0.221). Mean follow-up was 275 days. Mean cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal frequencies and frequency-to-amplitude ratios were markedly higher than literature controls. For patients with Gp overall and subdivided by etiology and severity of pain, S-100 neuronal fibers were significantly reduced in both muscularis propria layers. GES improved severe pain associated with symptoms of Gp. This severe pain is associated with abnormal electrogastrographic activity and loss of S100 neuronal fibers in the stomach's inner and outer muscularis propria and, therefore, could be the result of gastric neuropathy.

Long-term effects of gastric stimulation on gastric electrical physiology.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the modeling of gastric electrophysiology tracings during long-term gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis. We hypothesized that serosal electrogastrogram may change over time representing gastric remodeling from gastric stimulation. PATIENTS: Sixty-five patients with gastroparesis underwent placement of gastric stimulator for refractory symptoms. Mean age at initial stimulator placement was 44 years (range, 8-76), current mean age was 49, and the majority of the subjects were female (n = 51, 78 %). Only a minority had diabetes-induced gastroparesis (n = 16, 25 %); the remainder were either idiopathic or postsurgical. METHODS: At the time of stimulator placement, electrogastrogram was performed after the gastric leads were placed but before stimulation was begun. Patients underwent continuous stimulation until pacer batteries depleted. At the time of replacement, before the new pacemaker was attached, electrogastrogram was again performed. RESULTS: After a mean of 3.9 years of stimulation therapy, the mean of baseline frequency before stimulation therapy was 5.06 cycles/min and declined to 3.66 after replacement (p = 0.0000002). The mean amplitude was 0.33 mV before stimulation therapy and decreased to 0.31 mV (p = 0.73). The frequency/amplitude ratio was 38.4 before stimulation therapy and decreased to 21.9 (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Long-term gastric electrical stimulation causes improvement in basal unstimulated gastric frequency to near normal.

A double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of temporary endoscopic mucosal gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopically placed, temporary gastric electrical stimulation (tGES) may relieve symptoms of gastroparesis (Gp) and predict permanent gastric electrical stimulation (GES) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To measure effects of 72 hours of temporary GES on Gp symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: From 2005 to 2006, we conducted a hospital-based, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of two consecutive, 4-day sessions (session 1 and session 2), enrolling 58 patients (11 males, 47 females; mean age 46 years) with GP symptom histories of three etiologies (idiopathic, 38; diabetes mellitus, 13; postsurgical, 7). INTERVENTION: 72 continuous hours temporary GES was provided for group A during session 1, and for group B during session 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms measured daily; gastric emptying, electrogastrography, and quality of life measured at baseline and session close. RESULTS: In session 1, vomiting decreased in both groups, but was greater with stimulation, resulting in a day 3 difference of -1.02 (95% CI, -1.62 to -0.42; P < .001). Scores did not return to baseline during washout; on day 4, the difference persisted at -1.08 (95% CI, -1.81 to -0.35; P = .005). In session 2, vomiting slightly decreased with stimulation and slightly increased without it; at day 8, the nonactivated group had nonsignificantly greater vomiting, 0.12 (-0.68 to 0.92; P = .762). An overall treatment effect of a slight, nonsignificant daily decrease in average vomiting scores, -0.12 (-0.26 to 0.03; P = .116), was observed by pooling stimulation effects across sessions. LIMITATIONS: Missing data; potential physiological imbalances between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall treatment effects were not significant, differences in favor of stimulation were suggested. Barriers to observing treatment effects included a decrease in vomiting for both groups during session 1, insufficient washout, and the absence of baseline vomiting for some patients. Future studies should better define inclusion criteria, use longer washout periods, randomize by etiology and baseline physiological findings, and pursue alternative designs. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 00432835.).