Effectiveness of gastric electrical stimulation in gastroparesis: Results from a large prospectively collected database of national gastroparesis registries.

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for treating gastroparesis symptoms is controversial. METHODS: We 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 RESULTS: GES 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 INFERENCES: This 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.

Dietary intake and nutritional deficiencies in patients with diabetic or idiopathic gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastroparesis can lead to food aversion, poor oral intake, and subsequent malnutrition. We characterized dietary intake and nutritional deficiencies in patients with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis. METHODS: Patients with gastroparesis on oral intake (N = 305) were enrolled in the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Gastroparesis Registry and completed diet questionnaires at 7 centers. Medical history, gastroparesis symptoms, answers to the Block Food Frequency Questionnaire, and gastric emptying scintigraphy results were analyzed. RESULTS: Caloric intake averaged 1168 ± 801 kcal/day, amounting to 58% ± 39% of daily total energy requirements (TER). A total of 194 patients (64%) reported caloric-deficient diets, defined as <60% of estimated TER. Only 5 patients (2%) followed a diet suggested for patients with gastroparesis. Deficiencies were present in several vitamins and minerals; patients with idiopathic disorders were more likely to have diets with estimated deficiencies in vitamins A, B(6), C, K, iron, potassium, and zinc than diabetic patients. Only one-third of patients were taking multivitamin supplements. More severe symptoms (bloating and constipation) were characteristic of patients who reported an energy-deficient diet. Overall, 32% of patients had nutritional consultation after the onset of gastroparesis; consultation was more likely among patients with longer duration of symptoms and more hospitalizations and patients with diabetes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that nutritional consultation increased the chances that daily TER were met (odds ratio, 1.51; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with gastroparesis have diets deficient in calories, vitamins, and minerals. Nutritional consultation is obtained infrequently but is suggested for dietary therapy and to address nutritional deficiencies.

Infection rates in a large investigational trial of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment options for patients with fecal incontinence (FI) are limited, and surgical treatments can be associated with high rates of infection and other complications. One treatment, sacral nerve stimulation (SNS), is approved for FI in Europe. A large multicenter trial was conducted in North America and Australia to assess the efficacy of SNS in patients with chronic fecal incontinence. The aim of this report was to analyze the infectious complication rates in that trial. METHODS: Adult patients with a history of chronic fecal incontinence were enrolled into this study. Those patients who fulfilled study inclusion/exclusion criteria and demonstrated greater than two FI episodes per week underwent a 2-week test phase of SNS. Patients who showed a > or = 50% reduction in incontinent episodes and/or days per week underwent chronic stimulator implantation. Adverse events were reported to the sponsor by investigators at each study site and then coded. All events coded as implant site infection were included in this analysis. RESULTS: One hundred twenty subjects (92% female, 60.5 +/- 12.5 years old) received a chronically implanted InterStim Therapy device (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Patients were followed for an average of 28 months (range 2.2-69.5). Thirteen of the 120 implanted subjects (10.8%) reported infection after the chronic system implant. One infection spontaneously resolved and five were successfully treated with antibiotics. Seven infections (5.8%) required surgical intervention, with infections in six patients requiring full permanent device explantation. The duration of the test stimulation implant procedure was similar between the infected group (74 min) and the non-infected group (74 min). The average duration of the chronic neurostimulator implant procedure was also similar between the infected (39 min) and non-infected group (37 min). Nine infections occurred within a month of chronic system implant and the remaining four infections occurred more than a year from implantation. While the majority (7/9) of the early infections was successfully treated with observation, antibiotics, or system replacement, all four of the late infections resulted in permanent system explantation. CONCLUSION: SNS for FI resulted in a relatively low infection rate. This finding is especially important because the only other Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for end-stage FI, the artificial bowel sphincter, reports a much higher rate. Combined with its published high therapeutic success rate, this treatment has a positive risk/benefit profile.

Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: results of a 120-patient prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation has been approved for use in treating urinary incontinence in the United States since 1997, and in Europe for both urinary and fecal incontinence (FI) since 1994. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in a large population under the rigors of Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational protocol. METHODS: Candidates for SNS who provided informed consent were enrolled in this Institutional Review Board-approved multicentered prospective trial. Patients showing > or =50% improvement during test stimulation received chronic implantation of the InterStim Therapy (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN). The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate that > or =50% of subjects would achieve therapeutic success, defined as > or =50% reduction of incontinent episodes per week at 12 months compared with baseline. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients underwent test stimulation with a 90% success rate, and 120 (110 females) of a mean age of 60.5 years and a mean duration of FI of 6.8 years received chronic implantation. Mean follow-up was 28 (range, 2.2-69.5) months. At 12 months, 83% of subjects achieved therapeutic success (95% confidence interval: 74%-90%; P < 0.0001), and 41% achieved 100% continence. Therapeutic success was 85% at 24 months. Incontinent episodes decreased from a mean of 9.4 per week at baseline to 1.9 at 12 months and 2.9 at 2 years. There were no reported unanticipated adverse device effects associated with InterStim Therapy. CONCLUSION: Sacral nerve stimulation using InterStim Therapy is a safe and effective treatment for patients with FI.