T1413 The Addition of Pyloroplasty Is a New Surgical Approach That Enhances the Clinical Outcome to Gastric Electrical Stimulation (Enterra) in Patients with Post-Vagotomy Gastroparesis Compared to Diabetic/Idiopathic Gastroparesis

2008 ◽  
Vol 134 (4) ◽  
pp. A-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Sarosiek ◽  
Jameson Forster ◽  
Jerzy Sarosiek ◽  
Katherine Roeser ◽  
Richard McCallum
2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. S931
Author(s):  
Ammar Hassan ◽  
Abigail Stocker ◽  
Lindsay McElmurray ◽  
Karen Beatty ◽  
Michael G. Hughes ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. S-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard McCallum ◽  
William J. Snape ◽  
John M. Wo ◽  
Fredrick J. Brody ◽  
Henry P. Parkman ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 467-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Richmond ◽  
Benny Chong ◽  
Asmita Modak ◽  
Mary Emmett ◽  
Kimball Knackstedt ◽  
...  

Predictors of a favorable response and measures of success with gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for gastroparesis remain elusive. Published results remain inconsistent with respect to patient perceived benefit, despite statistical improvements in objective measures of symptom severity. We performed a retrospective analysis of 56 patients with gastroparesis who underwent insertion of a gastric electrical stimulator during the study period. Data included demographics, symptoms, total symptom severity score (TSS, range 0–24, initial and most recent), and gastric emptying times. TSS were grouped into four severity categories (0–10, 11–14, 15–18, 19–24). TSS improvement was defined as movement to a lower severity category. Perception of improvement was compared with that of TSS score improvement using χ2 test. Etiology as a predictor of improvement was measured using logistic regression. Initial mean TSS was 21, and post-treatment TSS was 13.5. Improvement was significant for individual symptoms and in reduction of TSS for both diabetic/idiopathic etiologies (P ≤ 0.001). No correlation was noted between likelihood of success/failure and gastric emptying times ( P = 0.32). Thirty-eight improved (moved to lower TSS category), whereas 18 failed (remained in same category) (P ≤ 0.001), which correlated with perception of improvement. Of 18 failures, 14 (77.7%) were idiopathic. On logistic regression, diabetics were more likely than idiopathic patients to move to a lower TSS category (odds ratio 14, P = 0.003) and even more likely to improve based on patient perception (odds ratio 45, P = 0.005). GES produces far more consistent improvement in diabetics. Further study of GES in idiopathic gastroparesis is needed. Application of the proposed TSS severity categories allowed differentiation of small, statistically significant (but clinically insignificant) reductions in TSS from larger, clinically significant reductions, thereby permitting more reliable application of TSS to the evaluation of GES efficacy.


2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 815 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. W. McCallum ◽  
I. Sarosiek ◽  
H. P. Parkman ◽  
W. Snape ◽  
F. Brody ◽  
...  

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (05) ◽  
pp. 349-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanshan Shen ◽  
Hui Luo ◽  
Cicily Vachaparambil ◽  
Parit Mekaroonkamol ◽  
Mohamed M. Abdelfatah ◽  
...  

Background Gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM) and gastric electrical stimulation (GES) have been reported as treatment options for refractory gastroparesis. In this study, we compared the long term clinical outcomes of G-POEM versus GES in the treatment of such patients. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 111 consecutive patients with refractory gastroparesis between January 2009 and August 2018. To overcome selection bias, we used propensity score matching (1:1) between G-POEM and GES treatment. The primary outcome was the duration of clinical response. Results After propensity score matching, 23 patients were included in each group. After a median follow-up of 27.7 months, G-POEM had a significantly better and longer clinical response than GES (hazard ratio [HR] for clinical recurrence 0.39, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.16 – 0.95; P = 0.04). The median duration of response was 25.4 months (95 %CI 8.7 – 42.0) in the GES group and was not reached in the G-POEM group. The Kaplan – Meier estimate of 24-month clinical response rate was 76.6 % with G-POEM vs. 53.7 % with GES. GES appeared to have little effect on idiopathic gastroparesis (HR for recurrence with G-POEM vs. GES 0.35, 95 %CI 0.13 – 0.95; P = 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the GES group (26.1 % vs. 4.3 %; P = 0.10). Conclusion Among patients with refractory gastroparesis, clinical response was better and lasted longer with G-POEM than with GES. The positive outcomes with G-POEM are likely to derive from the superior clinical response in patients with idiopathic gastroparesis. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.


2019 ◽  
Vol I (1) ◽  
pp. 01-05
Author(s):  
Abdul Kader Mohiuddin

This article covers the study of disease transmission, pathophysiology/complexities and the board of Diabetic Gastroparesis (DGP), and even more extensively diabetic gastro enteropathy, which incorporates all the gastrointestinal appearances of Diabetes Mellitus (DM). Hyperglycemia, autonomic neuropathy, and enteric neuromuscular aggravation and damage are ensnared in the pathogenesis of postponed Gastric Exhausting (GE). Introductory choices incorporate dietary alterations, supplemental oral sustenance, and antiemetic and prokinetic prescriptions. Patients with progressively extreme side effects may require a venting gastrostomy or jejunostomy as well as Gastric Electrical Stimulation (GES). Until this point, a couple of population-based investigations have evaluated the genuine prevalence and occurrence of gastroparesis. In any case, its prevalence seems, by all accounts, to be ascending, as does its rate among minority populations, reported by means of hospitalizations, which can force huge economic burdens on patients. Keywords: Diabetes; Delayed Gastric Emptying; Dyspepsia; Gastroparesis; Gastric Electrical Stimulation; Pyloric Dysfunction. Abbreviations DM: Diabetes Mellitus; DGP: Diabetic Gastroparesis; FD: Functional Dyspepsia; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; GE: Gastric Emptying; GP: Gastroparesis; GERD: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; GES: Gastric Electrical Stimulation; HFS: High-Frequency Stimulation; IGP: Idiopathic Gastroparesis; G-POEM: Peroral Endoscopic Pyloromyotomy; RCTs: Randomized Controlled Trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document