Efficacy of Gastric Electrical Stimulation for Gastroparesis: US/European Comparison

Invasive acupuncture for gastroparesis after thoracic or abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture in treating postsurgical gastroparesis syndrome (PGS) after thoracic or abdominal surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Twelve databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline (Ovid) (from 1946), Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus, Open Grey, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM)) and three registration websites (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR)) were searched from the inception to September 2022, and citations of the included literature were screened.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials addressing invasive acupuncture for PGS.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Key information on the included studies was extracted by two reviewers independently. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was used for categorical data, and mean difference with 95% CI for continuous data. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Outcomes were conducted with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 759 patients met the inclusion criteria. Subgroup analyses revealed that compared with the drug group, the drug and acupuncture group had a greater positive effect on the total effective rate (TER) (nine trials, n=427; RR=1.20; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; P-heterogeneity=0.20, I2=28%, p=0.0004) and the recovery rate (RCR) (six trials, n = 294; RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.98; P-heterogeneity=0.29, I2=19%, p<0.0001) of PGS after abdominal surgery. However, acupuncture showed no significant advantages in terms of the TER after thoracic surgery (one trial, p=0.13) or thoracic/abdominal surgery-related PGS (two trials, n = 115; RR=1.18; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.57; P-heterogeneity=0.08, I2=67%, p=0.24) and the RCR after thoracic/abdominal surgery (two trials, n=115; RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.97 to 2.01; P-heterogeneity=0.96, I2=0%, p=0.07). The quality of evidence for TER and RCR was moderate certainty. Only one study reported an acupuncture-related adverse event, in the form of mild local subcutaneous haemorrhage and pain that recovered spontaneously. TSA indicated that outcomes reached a necessary effect size except for clinical symptom score.

CONCLUSION

Based on subgroup analysis, compared with the drug treatment, acupuncture combined drug has significant advantages in the treatment of PGS associated with abdominal surgery, but not with thoracic surgery.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022299189.

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.

Epidemiology and outcomes of gastroparesis, as documented in general practice records, in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

To generate real-world evidence for the epidemiology of gastroparesis in the UK, we evaluated the prevalence, incidence, patient characteristics and outcomes of gastroparesis in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. Prevalence and incidence of gastroparesis were evaluated in the CPRD database, with linkage to Hospital Episodes Statistics Admitted Patient Care and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Prevalence and incidence were age and sex standardised to mid-2017 UK population estimates. Descriptive analyses of demographics, aetiologies, pharmacological therapies and mortality were conducted.

RESULTS

Standardised prevalence of gastroparesis, as documented in general practice records, was 13.8 (95% CI 12.6 to 15.1) per 100 000 persons in 2016, and standardised incidence of gastroparesis rose from 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.8) per 100 000 person-years in 2004 to 1.9 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) per 100 000 person-years in 2016. The most common disease aetiologies were idiopathic (39.4%) and diabetic gastroparesis (37.5%), with a similar distribution of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among the 90% who had type of diabetes documented. Patients with diabetic gastroparesis had a significantly higher risk of mortality than those with idiopathic gastroparesis after diagnosis (adjusted HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.0). Of those with gastroparesis, 31.6% were not offered any recognised pharmacological therapy after diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

This is, to our knowledge, the first population-based study providing data on epidemiology and outcomes of gastroparesis in Europe. Further research is required to fully understand the factors influencing outcomes and survival of patients with gastroparesis.

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.

A link between gastrointestinal disorders and migraine: Insights into the gut-brain connection

Background

Migraine is a complex, multifaceted, and disabling headache disease that is often complicated by gastrointestinal (GI) conditions, such as gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, and cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS). Functional dyspepsia and CVS are part of a spectrum of disorders newly classified as disorders of gut–brain interaction (DGBI). Gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia are both associated with delayed gastric emptying, while nausea and vomiting are prominent in CVS, which are also symptoms that commonly occur with migraine attacks. Furthermore, these gastric disorders are comorbidities frequently reported by patients with migraine. While very few studies assessing GI disorders in patients with migraine have been performed, they do demonstrate a physiological link between these conditions.

Objective

To summarize the available studies supporting a link between GI comorbidities and migraine, including historical and current scientific evidence, as well as provide evidence that symptoms of GI disorders are also observed outside of migraine attacks during the interictal period. Additionally, the importance of route of administration and formulation of migraine therapies for patients with GI symptoms will be discussed.

Methods

A literature search of PubMed for articles relating to the relationship between the gut and the brain with no restriction on the publication year was performed. Studies providing scientific support for associations of gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, and CVS with migraine and the impact these associations may have on migraine treatment were the primary focus. This is a narrative review of identified studies.

Results

Although the association between migraine and GI disorders has received very little attention in the literature, the existing evidence suggests that they may share a common etiology. In particular, the relationship between migraine, gastric motility, and vomiting has important clinical implications in the treatment of migraine, as delayed gastric emptying and vomiting may affect oral dosing compliance, and thus, the absorption and efficacy of oral migraine treatments.

Conclusions

There is evidence of a link between migraine and GI comorbidities, including those under the DGBI classification. Many patients do not find adequate relief with oral migraine therapies, which further necessitates increased recognition of GI disorders in patients with migraine by the headache community.

Effect of Electrical Stimulation on Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Lung Cancer Patients during Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective:

The objective was to evaluate the effects of transcutaneous acupoint electric stimulation (TAES) and gastric electrical stimulation (GES) on cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms.

Methods:

A total of 122 lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were assigned randomly to the following two groups: control group (usual care group, n = 61) and intervention group (TAES plus GES, n = 61). TAES involved two acupoints such as Neiguan (PC6) and Zusanli (ST36). GES was performed at gastric pacing sites on the body surface such as the places of projection of gastric antrum and corpus on the body surface. GES was performed on these sites for 14 days continuously (25 min every time, once daily). The effects of TAES and GES on GI symptoms were assessed using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale on the day prior to chemotherapy (time point 1) and days 14 (time point 2) and 28 (time point 3) after chemotherapy.

Results:

No significant differences in the demographic and disease-related variables were detected between the two groups. Differences in symptom occurrence and severity at time point 1 were not statistically significant between the two groups (both P > 0.05). At time points 2 and 3, GI symptoms such as loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation in the stimulation group had statistically significantly improved compared with the control group (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

TAES and GES were efficacious in relieving GI discomfort in lung cancer patients after chemotherapy. TAES combined with GES is a safe and easy-to-use tool to manage GI symptoms in practice.

Role of Gastric Electrical Stimulation in the Treatment of Gastroparesis

Introduction: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a surgically implanted treatment option for drug refractory gastroparesis syndromes. Evidence supporting use of GES and the pathophysiology of gastroparesis syndromes is not widely known. We conducted a descriptive review to elucidate the pathophysiology of gastroparesis syndromes, with particular focus on gastrointestinal neuromodulation and the known mechanisms of action of GES. Methods: A descriptive review of PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library was conducted using the keywords gastric electrical stimulation, gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, neuromodulation, gastroparesis syndromes, central nervous system, gastric pacing and electrical stimulation. Results: 1040 potentially relevant articles were identified, of which 34 were included. These studies explored various central and peripheral effects of GES, as well as its effect on quality of life, hospital stay, mortality and health-related costs. Conclusion: Although evidence supporting gastrointestinal (GI) electrical stimulation and GI neuromodulation use is not widely known, GES does seem to offer significant improvement in symptom control, quality of life and other effects to many patients. GES exerts its effects through multiple central and peripheral mechanisms and has potential to modify the natural history of disease. Future work on gastroparetic syndromes and their treatment might be better focused in terms of pathophysiologic mechanisms. Improving outcomes with specific neuromodulation therapies, like GES, may offer improvements in health for many patients with refractory upper gastrointestinal symptoms.

A Novel Approach in Spinal Cord Stimulation for Enhancing Gastric Motility: A Preliminary Study on Canines

Background/Aims

Gastroparesis is commonly seen in patients with diabetes and functional dyspepsia with no satisfactory therapies. Dysautonomia is one of the main reasons for the imbalanced motility. We hypothesized that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a viable therapy for gastroparesis via the autonomic modulation to improve gastric motility. The aim is to find an optimal method of SCS for treating gastroparesis.

Methods

Eight healthy-female dogs were implanted with a gastric cannula, a duodenal cannula, 2 multi-electrode spinal leads, and an implantable pulse generator. Gastric motility index (MI) was used to determine the best stimulation location/parameters of SCS. Optimized SCS was used to improve glucagon-induced gastroparesis.

Results

With fixed parameters, SCS at Thoracic 10 (T10) was found most effective for increasing gastric MI (37.8%, P = 0.013). SCS was optimized with different parameters (pulse width: 0.05–0.6 msec, frequency: 5–500 Hz, motor threshold: 30–90%) on T10. Our findings revealed that 0.5 msec, 20 Hz with 90% motor threshold at T10 were the best parameters in increasing MI. Glucagon significantly delayed gastric emptying, and this inhibitory effect was partially blocked by SCS. Gastric emptying at 120 minutes was 25.6% in the control session and 15.7% in glucagon session (P = 0.007 vs control), while it was 22.9% with SCS session (P = 0.041 vs glucagon). SCS with the optimal parameters was found to maximally enhance vagal activity and inhibit sympathetic activity assessed by the spectral analysis of heart rate variability.

Conclusions

SCS with optimized stimulation location and parameters improves gastric motility in healthy-dogs and accelerates gastric emptying impaired by glucagon via enhancing vagal activity.

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.

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).