Nutritional Assessment in Patients after Gastric Electrical Stimulation (GES).

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is used for patients with drug-refractory gastroparesis (Gp) symptoms. Approximately two-thirds of patients with Gp symptoms are either overweight or obese. We aimed to assess symptoms and nutritional status pre-GES and post-GES placement in a large sample of drug-refractory Gp patients. METHODS: We conducted a chart review of 282 patients with drug-refractory Gp who received temporary followed by permanent GES at an academic medical center. Gastrointestinal symptoms were collected by a traditional standardized PRO (0-4, 0 being asymptomatic and 4 being worst symptoms), baseline nutritional status by BMI plus subjective global assessment (SGA score A, B, C, for mild, moderate, and severe nutritional deficits), ability to tolerate diet, enteral tube access, and parenteral therapy were assessed at baseline and after permanent GES placement. RESULTS: Comparing baseline with permanent, GES was found to significantly improve upper GI symptoms in all quartiles. Of the 282 patients with baseline body mass index (BMI) information, 112 (40%) patients were severely malnourished at baseline, of which 36 (32%) patients' nutritional status improved after GES. Among all patients, 76 (68%) patients' nutritional status remained unchanged. Many patients with high BMI were malnourished by SGA. CONCLUSION: We conclude that symptomatic patients of different BMIs showed improvement in their GI symptoms irrespective of baseline nutritional status. Severely malnourished patients were found to have an improvement in their nutritional status after GES therapy. We conclude that BMI, even if high, is not by itself a contraindication for GES therapy for symptomatic patients.

Low-Resolution Electrogastrogram at Baseline and Response to Temporary Gastric Electrical Stimulation-A Comparison of Cutaneous With Mucosal Recordings.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a widely accepted therapy for gastroparesis symptoms, but how a brief cutaneous electrogastrogram (EGG) can be used in conjunction with GES has not been well defined. We evaluated the clinical importance of EGG, its correlation with mucosal electrograms (mEGs), gastric emptying tests (GETs), and gastrointestinal symptoms before and after temporary GES (tGES). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 1345 patients; 991 had complete data. EGG measurements like frequency and amplitude were recorded at baseline and five days post-tGES using short recording periods. A total of 266 participants having additional cutaneous propagation values were separately analyzed. Patients underwent solid GET before and after tGES and self-reported symptoms using standardized traditional patient-reported outcomes (TradPRO) scores. Pearson correlations were assessed at baseline, post-stimulation, and their changes over the follow-up period. RESULTS: EGG measures correlated with symptoms and GET results. Patients with abnormal baseline cutaneous frequency had higher baseline total symptom scores (p < 0.003). Post-tGES, one-hour gastric emptying was significantly changed (p < 0.0001) and was mainly observed with abnormal baseline cutaneous frequencies (p < 0.0001). Cutaneous frequency significantly increased after tGES (p < 0.0001), correlating positively with TradPRO scores and one-hour gastric emptying. Mucosal and cutaneous measures correlated pre- and post-treatment. Of the 266 patients, 153 changed propagation states between baseline and temporary; changing states from lower at baseline to higher at temporary was more likely than vice versa. Short EGG recording times can demonstrate changes after the bioelectric therapy of GES. CONCLUSION: EGG is valuable in the diagnosis of delayed gastric emptying and comparable with mEG. It is less invasive and can identify patients who may require GES. Frequency, amplitude, their ratio (frequency-amplitude ratio), and propagation appear to be reliable measures of EGG. EGG provides cost-effective measurement of electrophysiological properties and significantly correlates with important clinical measures. Shorter EGG recording times may be adequate to see changes from bioelectric therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03876288.

Baseline predictive factors for foregut and hindgut response to long-term gastric electrical stimulation using augmented energy.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) has been recommended for drug refractory patients with gastroparesis, but no clear baseline predictors of symptom response exist. We hypothesized that long-term predictors to GES for foregut and hindgut symptoms exist, particularly when using augmented energies. PATIENTS: We evaluated 307 patients at baseline, 1 week post temporary GES, and one year after permanent GES. Baseline measures included upper and lower symptoms by patient-reported outcomes (PRO), solid and liquid gastric emptying (GET), cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal electrophysiology (EGG, m/s EG), BMI, and response to temporary stimulation. METHODS: Foregut and hindgut PRO symptoms were analyzed for 12-month patient outcomes. All patients utilized a standardized energy algorithm with the majority of patients receiving medium energy at 12 months. Patients were categorized based on change in average GI symptom scores at the time of permanent GES compared to baseline using a 10% decrease over time as the cutoff between improvers versus non-improvers. RESULTS: By permanent GES implant, average foregut and hindgut GI symptom scores reduced 42% in improved patients (n = 199) and increased 27% in non-improved patients (n = 108). Low BMI, baseline infrequent urination score, mucosal EG ratio, and proximal mucosal EG low-resolution amplitude remained significant factors for improvement status. CONCLUSIONS: GES, for patients responding positively, improved both upper/foregut and lower/hindgut symptoms with most patients utilizing higher than nominal energies. Low baseline BMI and the presence of infrequent urination along with baseline gastric electrophysiology may help identify those patients with the best response to GES/bio-electric neuromodulation.

The Surgeon's Role in Gastric Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Gastroparesis.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroparesis, which can be viewed as a syndrome featuring nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, and associated other symptoms and findings, is increasingly seen by surgeons. Gastroparesis is associated with a number of gastrointestinal anatomic and physiologic findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article reviews the use of bioelectric therapy of neuromodulation, via gastric electrical stimulation, for patients with drug refractory gastroparesis syndromes including surgical aspects of device placement and subsequent management. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In addition to an overall approach to the placement and subsequent management of gastric electrical stimulation devices, several newer concepts are discussed. The role of pyloric dysfunction in gastroparesis is also discussed including how stimulation devices and pyloric therapies may be used in concert. The additions of full-thickness gastrointestinal biopsies along with other physiologic, including GI electrophysiology, as well as some serologic measures, are also discussed. In addition, evolving approaches and emerging technologies for bioelectric neuromodulation of the gastrointestinal tract are introduced. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroparesis syndromes can be approached in a systematic manner based on known pathophysiology and when indicated can be helped with surgical therapies including neuromodulation.

Effects of Gastric Neuromodulation on Crohn's Disease in Patients With Coexisting Symptoms of Gastroparesis.

INTRODUCTION: Crohn's Disease (CD) results from chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract involving TNF-α release. Gastrointestinal electrical stimulation (GES), a form of neuromodulation used to treat upper GI motility symptoms (UGI Sx), exerts an anti-inflammatory effect via TNF-α suppression. We hypothesized patients with CD symptoms in patients with gastroparesis (GP) may respond to GES. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 284 patients with symptomatic gastroparesis (Gp Sx), who underwent GES placement. Patients with Gp Sx were evaluated by validated GI Sx patient reported outcome. Scores were obtained at baseline, after temporary GES placement and after permanent GES placement. Eleven patients from this cohort with coexisting CD were analyzed for improvements in their CD symptomatology using the Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI). HBI scores were compared from before GES to after two sequential applications of electrical stimulation (temporary then permanent). A 3-point decrease in HBI indicated a clinical response and an HBI <5 indicated clinical remission after GES. An unadjusted repeated measures model was used in the analysis with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Our cohort prevalence of CD was 3.9% (2 M & 9 F, mean age 49.8 yrs.). Within both the Gp + CD & Gp subgroups, UGI Sx substantially improved after temporary and permanent GES. Furthermore, 55% of the GP + CD subgroup demonstrated a clinical response by HBI, while one patient achieved clinical remission (p < 0.01). CD medications were reviewed before and after GES placement, and any interval changes are unlikely to explain the improved HBI scores. DISCUSSION: We conclude that both UGI and CD symptoms in GP + CD patients responded well to GES. The interaction of Gp and CD and the effects of neuromodulation on CD symptoms warrant additional investigation.

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.

Treating an oft-unrecognized and troublesome entity: using gastric electrical stimulation to reduce symptoms of malignancy-associated gastroparesis.

PURPOSE: Malignancy-associated gastroparesis (MAG) is a cause of morbidity in cancer patients but therapies are lacking. Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a novel treatment for MAG. Here, we describe 19 patients with MAG who underwent temporary GES placement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients (6 males, 13 females) with various malignancies were reviewed for symptom scores and physiologic measures at baseline and after temporary GES placement. Symptoms were scored by three variables: nausea (N), vomiting (V), and GI total symptom score (TSS). Physiologic profiles were measured by solid and liquid phase gastric emptying scans (GET) at 1, 2, and 4 h and cutaneous electrogastrogram (EGG) and mucosal electrogram (EG) frequencies. Symptoms were measured for 5 days after temporary endoscopic GES placement, and measures were repeated post GES placement. RESULTS: Baseline GET results displayed delayed gastric emptying in 16 of 19 patients (mean solid retention 21.7 % at 4 h, normal <10 %; mean liquid retention 10.4 % at 4 h, normal <5 %). Cutaneous EGG (mean frequency 5.5 cpm) and EG (mean proximal frequency 5.1 cpm; mean distal frequency 5.1 cpm) showed evidence of neuromuscular dysfunction (normal 2.5-3.3 cpm). Symptom scores in N, V, and TSS showed statistically significant reduction after GES placement. CONCLUSION: A small sample of patients with MAG and receiving temporary GES experienced symptom improvement, with less change on gastric emptying time or gastric electrical amplitude or frequency. GES may provide a potential therapeutic option for symptomatic management of MAG and evaluation of these MAG patients after permanent GES placement is ongoing. Prospective studies of MAG using temporary and permanent GES may be warranted.

Mini-laparotomy with Adjunctive Care versus Laparoscopy for Placement of Gastric Electrical Stimulation.

We compared outcomes for two gastric electrical stimulation placement strategies, minilaparotomy with adjunctive care (MLAC) versus laparoscopy without adjunctive care (LAPA). For electrode placement, the peritoneal cavity was accessed with either a single 2.5 to 3.0 cm midline incision (MLAC) or three trocar incisions (LAPA). For both groups, generator was placed subcutaneously over the anterior rectus sheath. For MLAC, adjunctive pain control measures were used for placement of both electrode and generator (transversus abdominus plane block). For LAPA, those that could not be completed by laparoscopy were converted to traditional open approach and kept in the analysis. MLAC (n = 128) resulted in shorter operative times than LAPA (n = 37) (median operative time: 87.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01). Hospital length of stay was also shorter for MLAC than for LAPA (median: 2.0 vs 3.0 days, P ≤ 0.01) without any increase in readmission rates to the hospital within 30 days of discharge (11.0 vs 16.2%, P = 0.39). After equalizing learning curves, these differences were even greater (median operative time: 84.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P < 0.01; median length of stay: 1.0 vs 3.0 days; P < 0.01) without increasing 30-day readmission rates (9.1 vs 16.2%, P = 0.25). For implantation of gastric electrical stimulators, minilaparotomy can result in improved outcomes when coupled with adjunctive pain control measures.