Difference in Cyclic Versus Non-cyclic Symptom Patterns in Patients with the Symptoms of Gastroparesis Undergoing Bioelectric Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Patients with gastroparesis (Gp) have symptoms with or without a cyclic pattern. This retrospective study evaluates differences in cyclic vs. non-cyclic symptoms of Gp by analyzing mucosal electrogastrogram (mEG), familial dysautonomias, and response to gastric stimulation.

METHODS

37 patients with drug refractory Gp, 7 male and 30 female, with a mean age of 41.4 years, were studied. 18 had diabetes mellitus, 25 had cyclic (Cyc), and 12 had a non-cyclic (NoCyc) pattern of symptoms. Patients underwent temporary mucosal gastric stimulator (tGES) placement, which was done as a trial before permanent stimulator (GES) placement. Electrogastrogram (EGG) by mucosal (mEG) measures, including frequency, amplitude, and frequency-amplitude ratio (FAR), were pre- and post-tGES. Patients' history of personal and familial dysautonomias, quality of life, and symptom scores were recorded. Baseline vs. follow-ups were compared by paired t tests and McNemar's tests. T tests contrasted symptom scores, gastric emptying tests (GET), and mEG measures, while chi-squared tests deciphered comorbidity differences between two groups and univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

There were significantly more patients with diabetes in the Cyc group vs. the NoCyc group. Using a 1 point in symptom outcome, 18 patients did not improve and 19 did improve with tGES. Using univariable analysis, with the cyclic pattern as a predictor, patients exhibiting a cyclic pattern had an odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI 0.05-0.81, p = 0.054) for achieving an improvement of at least one unit in vomiting at follow-up from baseline. The mucosal electrogastrogram frequency to amplitude ratio (FAR) for the "not Improved" group was 19.6 [3.5, 33.6], whereas, for the "Improved" group, it was 54.3 [25.6, 72.5] with a p-value of 0.049. For multivariate logistic regression, accounting for sex and age squared, patients exhibiting a cyclic pattern had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.16 (95% CI 0.03-0.81, p = 0.027) for achieving an improvement of at least one unit in vomiting at follow-up from baseline. The two groups had no significant differences in the personal or inherited history of investigated familial patterns.

CONCLUSION

This study shows differences in Gp patients with Cyc vs. NoCyc symptoms in several areas. Larger studies are needed to elicit further differences between the two groups about cycles of symptoms, EGG, findings, familial patterns, and response to mucosal GES.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Gastroparesis or Gastroparesis-Like Symptoms: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of gastric electrical stimulation are not fully understood. We aimed to assess the efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for patients with gastroparesis and gastroparesis-like symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct to identify controlled trials and cohort studies. We used random effects models to estimate pooled effects. A total of nine studies met the criteria and were included for the final qualitative synthesis and the quantitative analysis. We examined the mean absolute differences (MD) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Nine studies (n = 730) met the criteria and were included for the final qualitative synthesis and the quantitative analysis. There was significant improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) total symptom score (TSS) with the GES group compared with controls during the randomized blind trials. This effect was sustained at 12 months after treatment compared with before treatment (MD = -6.07; 95% CI, -4.5 to -7.65; p < 0.00001). The pooled effect estimate showed a significant improvement in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes at 12 months compared with before treatment (MD = -15.59; 95% CI, -10.29 to -20.9; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

GES appears beneficial, with significant improvement in GI TSS, weekly vomiting frequency, gastric emptying study, and quality of life.

Optimization and assessment of a novel gastric electrode anchoring system designed to be implanted by minimally invasive surgery

A novel electrode anchoring design and its implantation procedure, aiming for a minimally invasive solution for gastric electrical stimulation, are presented. The system comprises an anchor made of a flexible body embedding two needle-shaped electrodes. The electrodes can easily switch from a parallel position - to pierce the stomach - to a diverging position - enabling them to remain firmly anchored into the muscular layer of the stomach. Key device parameters governing anchoring stability were assessed on a traction test bench, and optimal values were derived. The device was then implanted in six dogs by open surgery to assess its anchoring durability in vivo. Computed tomography images showed that the electrodes remained well placed within the dogs' gastric wall over the entire assessment period (more than one year). Finally, a prototype of a surgical tool for the minimally invasive device placement was manufactured, and the anchoring procedure was tested on a dog cadaver, providing the proof of concept of the minimally invasive implantation procedure. The use of our electrode anchoring system in long-term gastric electrical stimulation is promising in terms of implantation stability (the anchor withstands a force up to 0.81 N), durability (the anchor remains onto the stomach over one year) and minimal invasiveness of the procedure (the diameter of the percutaneous access is smaller than 12 mm). Moreover, the proposed design could have clinical applications in other hollow organs, such as the urinary bladder.

Multicenter, Phase 1, Open Prospective Trial of Gastric Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Obesity: First-in-Human Results with a Novel Implantable System

Background and Aims

To assess safety of the Exilis™ gastric electrical stimulation (GES) system and to investigate whether the settings can be adjusted for comfortable chronic use in subjects with morbid obesity. Gastric emptying and motility and meal intake were evaluated.

Method

In a multicenter, phase 1, open prospective cohort study, 20 morbidly obese subjects (17 female, mean BMI of 40.8 ± 0.7 kg/m²) were implanted with the Exilis™ system. Amplitude of the Exilis™ system was individually set during titration visits. Subjects underwent two blinded baseline test days (GES ON vs. OFF), after which long-term, monthly follow-up continued for up to 52 weeks.

Results

The procedure was safe, and electrical stimulation was well tolerated and comfortable in all subjects. No significant differences in gastric emptying halftime (203 ± 16 vs. 212 ± 14 min, p > 0.05), food intake (713 ± 68 vs. 799 ± 69 kcal, p > 0.05), insulin AUC (2448 ± 347 vs. 2186 ± 204, p > 0.05), and glucose AUC (41 ± 2 vs.41 ± 2, p > 0.05) were found between GES ON and OFF. At week 4, 13, and 26, a significant (p < 0.01) reduction in weight loss was observed but not at week 52. At this time point, the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 14.2 ± 4.5%.

Conclusion

Gastric electrical stimulation with the Exilis™ system can be considered as safe. No significant effect on food intake, gastric emptying, or gastric motility was observed. The reduction in weight loss with Exilis™ GES was significant but short lasting. Further electrophysiological research is needed to gain more insight in optimal stimulation parameters and lead localization.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Refractory Gastroparesis: the Current Approach to Management

Purpose of Review

Gastroparesis is one of the more challenging entities in the landscape of gastroenterology, posing difficulties for both patients and physicians with regard to effective management and therapies. In this article, we reviewed various gastroparesis treatment options, with an emphasis on gastric electrical stimulation (GES).

Recent Findings

GES has demonstrated a significant reduction of cardinal symptoms in refractory gastroparetic patients, particularly nausea and vomiting, across multiple studies. However, GES has not been shown to conclusively decrease gastric emptying time in these patients. Such finding has led the investigators to analyze the impact of combining GES with pyloroplasty. While this treatment pathway is nascent, its results thus far reveal an amplified improvement of gastroparesis symptomatology in addition to significant reduction of gastric transit, compared to GES by itself.

Summary

Limited treatment choices are available for refractory gastroparesis. Combining GES with pyloroplasty holds promise but requires further assessment in large-scale trials to fully evaluate the risks and benefits.

Gastroparesis: New insights into an old disease

Gastroparesis (Gp) is a chronic disease characterized by a delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction. Although this condition has been reported in the literature since the mid-1900s, only recently has there been renewed clinical and scientific interest in this disease, which has a potentially great impact on the quality of life. The aim of this review is to explore the pathophysiological, diagnostic and therapeutical aspects of Gp according to the most recent evidence. A comprehensive online search for Gp was carried out using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Gp is the result of neuromuscular abnormalities of the gastric motor function. There is evidence that patients with idiopathic and diabetic Gp may display a reduction in nitrergic inhibitory neurons and in interstitial cells of Cajal and/or telocytes. As regards diagnostic approach, 99-Technetium scintigraphy is currently considered to be the gold standard for Gp. Its limits are a lack of standardization and a mild risk of radiation exposure. The C13 breath testing is a valid and safe alternative method. ¹³C acid octanoic and the ¹³C Spirulina platensis recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration are the most commonly used diagnostic kits. The wireless motility capsule is a promising technique, but its use is limited by costs and scarce availability in many countries. Finally, therapeutic strategies are related to the clinical severity of Gp. In mild and moderate Gp, dietary modification and prokinetic agents are generally sufficient. Metoclopramide is the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Gp. However, other older and new prokinetics and antiemetics can be considered. As a second-line therapy, tricyclic antidepressants and cannabinoids have been proposed. In severe cases the normal nutritional approach can be compromised and artificial nutrition may be needed. In drug-unresponsive Gp patients some alternative strategies (endoscopic, electric stimulation or surgery) are available.

An emerging method to noninvasively measure and identify vagal response markers to enable bioelectronic control of gastroparesis symptoms with gastric electrical stimulation

BACKGROUND

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) can be a life-changing, device-based treatment option for drug-resistant nausea and vomiting associated with diabetic or idiopathic gastroparesis (GP). Despite over two decades of clinical use, the mechanism of action remains unclear. We hypothesize a vagal mechanism.

NEW METHOD

Here, we describe a noninvasive method to investigate vagal nerve involvement in GES therapy in 66 human subjects through the compound nerve action potential (CNAP).

RESULTS

Of the 66 subjects, 28 had diabetic GP, 35 had idiopathic GP, and 3 had postsurgical GP. Stimulus charge per pulse did not predict treatment efficacy, but did predict a significant increase in total symptom score in type 1 diabetics as GES stimulus charge per pulse increased (p < 0.01), representing a notable side effect and providing a method to identify it. In contrast, the number of significant left and right vagal fiber responses that were recorded directly related to patient symptom improvement. Increased vagal responses correlated with significant decreases in total symptom score (p < 0.05).

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S)

We have developed transcutaneous recording of cervical vagal activity that is synchronized with GES in conscious human subjects, along with methods of discriminating the activity of different nerve fiber groups with respect to conduction speed and treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

Cutaneous vagal CNAP analysis is a useful technique to unmask relationships among GES parameters, vagal recruitment, efficacy and side-effect management. Our results suggest that CNAP-guided GES optimization will provide the most benefit to patients with idiopathic and type 1 diabetic gastroparesis.

Gastric electrical stimulation: An emerging therapy for children with intractable gastroparesis

Management of gastroparesis remains challenging, particularly in pediatric patients. Supportive care and pharmacological therapies for symptoms remain the mainstay treatment. Although they are effective for mild and some moderately severe cases, often time they do not work for severe gastroparesis. There are a few prokinetics available, yet the use of these drugs is limited by a lack of persistent efficacy and/or safety concerns. Currently, the only modality for adult patients with severe intractable gastroparesis is surgery, e.g., pyloroplasty and partial gastrectomy, however, this option is generally considered too radical for a growing child. Novel therapeutic approaches, particularly those which are less invasive, are needed. This article explores gastric electrical stimulation (GES), a new therapy for gastroparesis. Unlike others, it neither needs medications nor gastrectomy; rather, it treats through the use of microelectrodes to deliver high-frequency low energy electric stimulation to the pacemaker area of the stomach. Thus, it is tolerated and safe in children. Like in adult patients, GES appears to work in releasing symptoms, improving nutrition, and enhancing the quality of life; it also helps wean off medications and eliminate many needs for hospitalization. Considering the transient nature of gastroparesis in children in many occasions, GES is considered a “bridging” therapy after failed medical interventions and before surgery.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation Is an Effective Treatment Modality for Refractory Gastroparesis in a Postsurgical Patient with Pancreatic Cancer

Gastroparesis-related hospital visits contribute significantly to healthcare costs. Gastroparesis can lead to chronic symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, bloating, early satiety, and abdominal pain. It can result in a significant impairment of quality of life. Diabetes and postsurgery are common causes for gastroparesis, but most cases of gastroparesis are idiopathic in presumed etiology. Malignancy-related gastroparesis has also recently been described in the literature, and pancreatic cancer is a malignancy commonly associated with gastroparesis. Whipple surgery for pancreatic cancer is often complicated by gastroparesis during its postoperative course. We report a case where gastric electrical stimulation was an effective treatment option in the treatment of refractory malignancy-related gastroparesis.

Periprocedural Considerations for Patients with Gastric Electrical Stimulators

OBJECTIVES

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a technology that uses neurostimulation for the modulation of gastric activity. In clinical practice, the most commonly encountered form of GES is high frequency GES. GES devices are typically used for the treatment of refractory gastroparesis, although they have also been investigated for obesity management and the treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. Just as many patients with chronic diseases require surgery, patients with an implanted GES device may encounter the need for periprocedural care. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to address the special needs of patients with an implanted GES device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic computerized search of the literature was performed to consolidate existing knowledge on GES management in the periprocedural setting. Duplicate results were eliminated, and results were further narrowed based on title and abstract. All articles with possible relevance were then reviewed in full. Manufacturer information including pamphlets and websites were also reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 1201 articles were identified for initial review, and 33 met inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Available data suggests GES is a technology with increasing prevalence. When patients with an implanted GES device present for periprocedural care, the anesthesia staff must consider the device when planning for the procedure. Topics addressed include general anesthetic considerations, nerve localization, radiation exposure, electrocautery, diathermy, emergency external defibrillation, and MRI compatibility.

Gastric Electrical Stimulator for Treatment of Gastroparesis

Patients with gastroparesis sometimes suffer from intractable nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, and bloating, as well as a host of other symptoms that can often be difficult to control. Initially, patients are treated conservatively; some do well with conservative management but unfortunately some do not. Over the years, studies have shown the benefits of gastric electrical stimulation, which often results in symptomatic improvement and improvement in gastric emptying times. This article discusses the history of gastric electrical stimulation and its use in clinical practice to help those suffering from gastroparesis that is refractory to conservative medical management.

Helping Patients with Gastroparesis

Gastroparesis is an increasing concern and options remain limited. Diagnosis hinges on recognition of delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction. Nontransit studies evaluating gastric motility serve a complementary role and may help guide therapy. Treatment consists of a combination of lifestyle and dietary medication, medications (antiemetics, prokinetics, neuromodulators, and accommodation-enhancers), alternative and complementary therapy, endoscopic therapy (pyloric-directed therapy, temporary stimulation, jejunostomy, or venting gastrostomy) and surgical therapy (pyloroplasty, gastric electrical stimulation, gastrectomy). Treatment can be tailored to the individual needs and symptoms of the affected patient.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is used in both the US and Europe, but little research has investigated the demographics of gastroparesis patients receiving GES by geographic location.

METHODS

We compared data from 380 patients, 296 female and 84 males, mean age 42 years, 246 idiopathic (ID), 107 diabetic (DM), and 27 post-surgical (PS). The statistical significance was calculated by Chi-square test and a P-value obtained for ID, DM, and PS. The statistical significance was calculated by Fischer exact test and a P-value obtained comparing male vs. female.

RESULTS

European centers had 61 GES patients compared to 319 from the US. In Europe, 100% of patients had gastric emptying test (GET) values available; in the US, it was 75% of patients. European centers had more DM patients (59%) than the US (22%), and a smaller proportion of ID patients (25%) than the US (72%). There was a statistical difference between the causes of gastroparesis in the patients receiving GES (P-value < 0.00001). There was also significant difference in the gender of the patients receiving GES, with a greater proportion of women in the US (P value = 0.0023).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing GES in US vs. Europe demonstrated significant differences in gastroparesis demographics and percentage of patients with GET data. After analyzing the previously discussed results and reviewing recent updates in evidence-based medicine guidelines, the discrepancy and variance in patient populations in the US and Europe emphasizes the need for a database that allows better analysis and treatment of gastroparesis patients worldwide including stimulation therapies.

Diabetes and the Stomach

OPINION STATEMENT

Longstanding diabetes mellitus (both type 1 and type 2) can impair gastric motor function and cause significant upper gastrointestinal symptoms which significantly degrade quality of life, cause nutritional deficits, and degrade healthcare resource use. The most commonly considered gut complication of diabetes, diabetic gastroparesis, is a syndrome of delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction which leads to symptoms of nausea, vomiting, postprandial fullness, early satiation, bloating, and upper abdominal pain. Gastroparesis also can lead to loss of glycemic control. A diagnosis of gastroparesis is made by documenting delayed gastric emptying and excluding mechanical obstruction. Gastric emptying scintigraphy is the most commonly utilized test for the diagnosis of gastroparesis but novel tests of gastric function have recently been introduced including the gastric emptying breath test and wireless motility capsule. Management most often is aimed at controlling symptoms, which includes dietary modification, optimization of glycemic control, and medication therapy with prokinetics, antiemetics, and neuromodulatory agents. Endoscopic and/or surgical therapies may be considered for refractory cases of gastroparesis. Recent research has provided new insights into the pathophysiology of this disease and is characterizing potential benefits of novel therapeutic agents which show promise in the treatment of this condition. This article will review the pathophysiology, new insights into disease mechanism, and treatment options for diabetic gastroparesis.

Gastrointestinal Peptides During Chronic Gastric Electrical Stimulation in Patients With Intractable Vomiting

OBJECTIVES

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is an alternative therapy to treat patients with intractable vomiting. A preclinical study has demonstrated the modulation of the gastrointestinal (GI) peptide ghrelin by GES but such mechanism has never been investigated in patients. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of GES on GI peptide levels in patients with intractable vomiting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients were randomized to receive either ON or OFF GES, 14 completed the study (10 ON, 4 OFF stimulation). Vomiting episodes, gastric emptying, and gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) were assessed. Gastric and blood samples were collected before and four months after the ON period of gastric stimulation. mRNA and/or peptide levels were assessed in gastric biopsies for ghrelin, leptin, and NUCB2/nesfatin-1 and in duodenal biopsies for glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY) using RT-qPCR and multiplex technology. Ghrelin, leptin, GLP-1, PYY, gastric inhibitory peptide (GIP), and NUCB2/nesfatin-1 levels also were quantified in blood samples.

RESULTS

Among clinical parameters, vomiting episodes were slightly reduced by GES (p = 0.09). In tissue, mRNA or protein levels were not modified following chronic GES. In blood, a significant reduction of postprandial PYY levels (p < 0.05) was observed at M4 and a reduction of NUCB2/nesfatin-1 levels in fasted patients (p < 0.05). Increased plasma leptin levels after GES were correlated with reduction of vomiting and improvement of GIQLI.

CONCLUSIONS

GES reduces NUCB2/nesfatin-1 levels under fasting conditions and postprandial PYY levels in patients suffering from nausea and/or vomiting refractory to pharmacological therapies.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation Is an Option for Patients with Refractory Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome

Background/Aims

Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a disabling migraine variant manifesting as severe episodes of nausea and vomiting and often refractory to many therapies. Gastric electrical stimulation (GES), which can reduce nausea and vomiting in gastroparesis, may provide symptomatic relief for drug-refractory CVS. This study assessed the utility GES in reducing the symptoms of CVS and improving the quality of life.

Methods

A one-year, non-randomized, clinical study was conducted. Eleven consecutive patients with drug refractory, cyclic vomiting syndrome based on Rome III criteria and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN), underwent treatment with temporary GES (Temp GES) and permanent GES (Perm GES). Post-treatment follow up was done up to one year after permanent gastric electrical stimulation therapy.

Results

Total symptom score decreased by 68% and 40% after temporary and permanent GES therapies, respectively. Hospital admission events significantly decreased to 1.50 (± 1.00) events from 9.14 (± 7.21) annual admissions prior to treatment with permanent GES. Vomiting episodes fell by 83% post Temp GES and 69% after Perm GES treatments. Mucosal electrogram values also changed after temporary stimulation.

Conclusions

In a small group of drug-refractory CVS patients, treatments with temporary and permanent GES significantly reduced the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms and frequency of hospital admissions.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation for Gastroparesis and Chronic Unexplained Nausea and Vomiting

OPINION STATEMENT

Gastroparesis is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Some patients have debilitating vomiting, weight loss, and dehydration, while others have effortless regurgitation of undigested foods or postprandial distress suggestive of functional dyspepsia. Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) has been proposed as an effective treatment option for patients with gastroparesis refractory to medical therapy. Evidence suggests that the clinically available device, a low-energy high-frequency GES, activates the vagal afferent pathways to influence the central control mechanisms for nausea and vomiting. Myoelectrical effects of the stomach are also involved. The results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for adults with diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis are conflicting. There are no RCTs in adults with chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting (CUNV) with normal gastric emptying or in children with gastroparesis. However, there is increasing evidence from large unblinded studies showing the long-term efficacy in selected adults with gastroparesis. Selection criteria should be based on three categories: (a) underlying etiology, (b) clinical presentation and predominant symptoms, and (c) potential risk for complication. Significant abdominal pain, daily opiate use, and idiopathic gastroparesis are identified as negative predictors of success. Temporary GES has been utilized to identify patients who may benefit from surgical GES, but this strategy has yet to be proven in controlled studies. Objectives for this review are to highlight the mechanisms of action for GES, to look at the evidence for clinical efficacy, and to select patients who are likely to benefit.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis

BACKGROUND

Controlled trials of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for gastroparesis reported no significant improvement in symptoms, while open label studies suggested substantial clinical benefits.

AIM

To determine if GES is effective in reducing symptoms in patients with gastroparesis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for articles published in English (1990-2014) using "gastroparesis" as a search term restricted to "clinical trial". We included studies describing repeated patient-based symptom ratings before and during standardized treatments of at least one week duration.

RESULTS

Five studies randomly allocated patients to periods with or without GES. Total symptom severity (TSS) scores did not differ between these periods (0.17 [95% confidence interval: -0.06 to 0.4]; P=0.15). However, sixteen open label studies of GES showed a significant TSS decrease (2.68 [2.04-3.32]; Q=39.0; P<0.001). Other treatment modalities similarly improved TSS by 1.97 [1.5-2.44] for medical therapy (MED), by 1.52 [0.9-2.15] for placebo arms (PLA), and by 2.32 [1.56-3.06] for botulinum toxin (BTx). There were significant differences in baseline TSS ratings among these studies (GES: 6.28 [6.28-7.42]; MED: 4.76 [4.09-5.42]; PLA: 4.59 [3.77-5.42]; BTx: 6.02 [5.3-6.74]; Q=35.1; P<0.001). Meta-regression analysis showed these baseline differences to significantly impact TSS ratings during treatment (Q=71.8; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Independent of the treatment modality, baseline symptom severity impacts treatment results in gastroparesis. Considering the skewed population with refractory symptoms, regression to the mean likely contributes to the substantial discrepancies between the reported results of controlled and open label GES studies, raising questions about the use of GES outside of defined clinical trials.

Interventional treatment of obesity and diabetes: An interim report on gastric electrical stimulation

Gastric electrical stimulation has been applied to treat human obesity since 1995. Dilatation of the stomach causes a series of neural reflexes which result in satiation and satiety. In non-obese individuals food ingestion is limited in part by this mechanism. In obese individuals, satiation and satiety are defective and unable to limit energy intake and prevent excessive weight gain. Several gastric electrical stimulatory (GES) devices have been developed, tested in clinical trials and even approved for the treatment of obesity. The design and clinical utility of three devices (Transend®, Maestro® and DIAMOND®) that have been extensively studied are presented as well as that of a new device (abiliti®) which is in early development. The Transcend®, a low energy GES device, showed promising results in open label studies but failed to show a difference from placebo in decreasing weight in obese subjects. The results of the clinical trials in treating obese subjects with the Maestro®, a vagal nerve stimulator, were sufficient to gain approval for marketing the device. The DIAMOND®, a multi-electrode GES device, has been used to treat type 2 diabetes and an associated benefit is to reduce body weight and lower systolic blood pressure.

Treatment of gastrointestinal autonomic neuropathy

The symptoms caused by gastrointestinal autonomic neuropathy in diabetes mellitus is important to highlight since it affects a large proportion of people with diabetes, regardless of whether this is type 1 or type 2. Gastroparesis and general signs of bowel dysfunction, such as constipation, diarrhoea and abdominal pain are most often encountered and involve both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options. This mini-review summarises a presentation given at the 'Diagnosis and treatment of autonomic diabetic neuropathy in the gut' symposium at the 2015 annual meeting of the EASD. It is accompanied by another mini-review on a topic from this symposium (by Azpiroz and Malagelada, DOI: 10.1007/s00125-015-3831-1 ) and a commentary by the Session Chair, Péter Kempler (DOI: 10.1007/s00125-015-3826-y ).

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.

Neuroenteric Stimulation for Gastroparesis

OPINION STATEMENT

Gastroparesis (GP) is a syndrome characterized by delayed gastric emptying in association with symptoms of epigastric pain, nausea, and vomiting in the absence of mechanical obstruction. The prevalence of gastroparesis has been estimated at 24 per 100,000, with women more commonly affected than men. Diabetes appears to be the underlying cause in approximately 25 % of patients, while connective tissue disorders, autoimmune disorders, prior gastric surgery, ischemia, and medications make up a smaller percentage of the remaining identifiable causes. However, the largest group of GP patients falls into the idiopathic category (~50 %); many of these patients likely develop GP as a result of a prior viral infection. Symptoms of gastroparesis develop due to a number of different pathophysiologic processes, including disorders of fundic accommodation, antroduodenal dyscoordination, a weak antral pump, gastric dysrhythmias, abnormal duodenal feedback, and enhanced visceral sensation. Once the diagnosis of GP is made, the clinician has a number of different treatment options. For patients with mild to moderate symptoms, dietary modifications in conjunction with or without prokinetics and antiemetics are often all that is required. However, many patients with severe symptoms who fail to respond to standard therapy may benefit from neuroenteric stimulation (gastric electrical stimulation). This monograph will review the role of the neuroenteric stimulator therapy for gastroparesis, discuss possible mechanisms of action of neuroenteric stimulation, review data from recently published studies on its efficacy, and discuss patient selection and adverse events.

A randomized blinded cross-over trial

Gastric electrical stimulation with the implanted DIAMOND device has been shown to improve glycemic control and decrease weight and systolic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic agents. The objective of this study was to determine if device implantation alone (placebo effect) contributes to the long-term metabolic benefits of DIAMOND(®) meal-mediated gastric electrical stimulation in patients with type 2 diabetes. The study was a 48 week randomized, blinded, cross-over trial in university centers comparing glycemic improvement of DIAMOND(®) implanted patients with type 2 diabetic with no activation of the electrical stimulation (placebo) versus meal-mediated activation of the electrical signal. The endpoint was improvement in glycemic control (HbA1c) from baseline to 24 and 48 weeks. In period 1 (0-24 weeks), equal improvement in HbA1c occurred independent of whether the meal-mediated electrical stimulation was turned on or left off (HbA1c -0.80% and -0.85% [-8.8 and -9.0 mmol/mol]). The device placebo improvement proved to be transient as it was lost in period 2 (25-48 weeks). With electrical stimulation turned off, HbA1c returned toward baseline values (8.06 compared to 8.32%; 64.2 to 67.4 mmol/mol, P = 0.465). In contrast, turning the electrical stimulation on in period 2 sustained the decrease in HbA1c from baseline (-0.93%, -10.1mmol/mol, P = 0.001) observed in period 1. The results indicate that implantation of the DIAMOND device causes a transient improvement in HbA1c which is not sustained beyond 24 weeks. Meal-mediated electrical stimulation accounts for the significant improvement in HbA1c beyond 24 weeks.

Surgical approaches to treatment of gastroparesis: gastric electrical stimulation, pyloroplasty, total gastrectomy and enteral feeding tubes

Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is neurostimulation; its mechanism of action is affecting central control of nausea and vomiting and enhancing vagal function. GES is a powerful antiemetic available for patients with refractory symptoms of nausea and vomiting from gastroparesis of idiopathic and diabetic causes. GES is not indicated as a way of reducing abdominal pain in gastroparetic patients. The need for introducing a jejunal feeding tube means intensive medical therapies are failing, and is an indication for the implantation of the GES system, which should always be accompanied by a pyloroplasty to guarantee accelerated gastric emptying.

Neurostimulation of the gastrointestinal tract: review of recent developments

OBJECTIVE

Neurostimulation is one manifestation of neuromodulation of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. This manuscript reviews the history of neurostimulation of the GI tract with emphasis on current methods of stimulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review was completed of the current research on GI neurostimulation methods with an emphasis on their clinical applications.

RESULTS

Upper GI disorders can be modulated with both temporary (placed endoscopically or surgically) or permanent (placed surgically) gastric electrical stimulation (GES) devices. The current GI neurostimulation of stomach (GES) devices have been used in both children and adults, and some patients have been followed in excess of 15 years with good long-term results. Similar GES devices also have been used for a variety of lower GI disorders, including constipation and fecal incontinence, for a number of years.

CONCLUSIONS

GI neurostimulation, as a type of neuromodulation, has been demonstrated to function at several locations in the GI tract for a variety of disorders. The future of neurostimulation in the GI tract will likely be influenced by a better understanding of pathophysiology as well as the development of new techniques and devices for neuromodulation.

Updates on gastric electrical stimulation to treat obesity: Systematic review and future perspectives

AIM: To evaluate the current state-of-the-art of gastric electrical stimulation to treat obesity.

METHODS: Systematic reviews of all studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of different types of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) on obesity.

RESULTS: Thirty-one studies consisting of a total of 33 different trials were included in the systematic review for data analysis. Weight loss was achieved in most studies, especially during the first 12 mo, but only very few studies had a follow-up period longer than 1 year. Among those that had a longer follow-up period, many were from the Transcend^® (Implantable Gastric Stimulation) device group and maintained significant weight loss. Other significant results included changes in appetite/satiety, gastric emptying rate, blood pressure and neurohormone levels or biochemical markers such as ghrelin or HbA1c respectively.

CONCLUSION: GES holds great promises to be an effective obesity treatment. However, stronger evidence is required through more studies with a standardized way of carrying out trials and reporting outcomes, to determine the long-term effect of GES on obesity.

Treatment of refractory diabetic gastroparesis: Western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine therapies

Refractory diabetic gastroparesis (DGP), a disorder that occurs in both type 1 and type 2 diabetics, is associated with severe symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, and results in an economic burden on the health care system. In this article, the basic characteristics of refractory DGP are reviewed, followed by a discussion of therapeutic modalities, which encompasses the definitions and clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapeutic efficacy evaluation of refractory DGP. The diagnostic standards assumed in this study are those set forth in the published literature due to the absence of recognized diagnosis criteria that have been assessed by an international organization. The therapeutic modalities for refractory DGP are as follows: drug therapy, nutritional support, gastric electrical stimulation, pyloric botulinum toxin injection, endoscopic or surgical therapy, and traditional Chinese treatment. The therapeutic modalities may be used alone or in combination. The use of traditional Chinese treatments is prevalent in China. The effectiveness of these therapies appears to be supported by preliminary evidence and clinical experience, although the mechanisms that underlie these effects will require further research. The purpose of this article is to explore the potential of combined Western and traditional Chinese medicine treatment methods for improved patient outcomes in refractory DGP.

Gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis: a goal greatly pursued, but not yet attained

The lack of an effective medical treatment for gastroparesis has pushed the research of new techniques of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for nearly half a century of experimentation with a large variety of electrical stimuli delivered to the gastric wall of animals and patients with gastroparesis. Three principal methods are currently available: gastric low-frequency/high-energy GES with long pulse stimulation, high-frequency/low-energy GES with short pulse stimulation and neural sequential GES. The first method aims to reset a regular slow wave rhythm, but has variable effects on contractions and requires devices with large and heavy batteries unsuitable for implantation. High-frequency/low-energy GES, although inadequate to restore a normal gastric electro-mechanical activity, improves dyspeptic symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, giving patients a better quality of life together with a more satisfactory nutritional status and is suitable for implantation. Unfortunately, the numerous clinical studies using this type of GES, with the exception of two, were not controlled and there is a need for definitive verification of the effectiveness of this technique to justify the cost and the risks of this procedure. The last method, which is neural sequential GES, consists of a microprocessor-controlled sequential activation of a series of annular electrodes along the distal two thirds of the stomach and is able to induce propagated contractions causing forceful emptying of the gastric content. The latter method is the most promising, but has been used only in animals and needs to be tested in patients with gastroparesis before it is regarded as a solution for this disease.

Gastroparesis: current concepts and management

Delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction is referred to as gastroparesis. Symptoms that are often attributed to gastroparesis include postprandial fullness, nausea, and vomiting. Although tests of gastric motor function may aid diagnostic labeling, their contribution to determining the treatment approach is often limited. Although clinical suspicion of gastroparesis warrants the exclusion of mechanical causes and serum electrolyte imbalances, followed by empirical treatment with a gastroprokinetic such as domperidone or metoclopramide, evidence that these drugs are effective for patients with gastroparesis is far from overwhelming. In refractory cases with severe weight loss, invasive therapeutics such as inserting a feeding jejunostomy tube, intrapyloric injection of botulinum toxin, surgical (partial) gastrectomy, and implantable gastric electrical stimulation are occasionally considered.

Effect of two-channel gastric electrical stimulation with trains of pulses on gastric motility

AIM: To investigate the effect of two-channel gastric electrical stimulation (GES) with trains of pulses on gastric emptying and slow waves.

METHODS: Seven dogs implanted with four pairs of electrodes and equipped with a duodenal cannula were involved in this study. Two experiments were performed. The first experiment included a series of sessions in the fasting state with trains of short or long pulses, each lasted 10 min. A 5-min recording without pacing was made between two sessions. The second experiment was performed in three sessions (control, single-channel GES, and two-channel GES). The stimulus was applied via the 1st pair of electrodes for single-channel GES (GES via one pair of electrodes located at 14 cm above the pylorus), and simultaneously via the 1st and 3rd channels for two-channel GES (GES via two pairs of electrodes located at 6 and 14 cm above the pylorus). Gastric liquid emptying was collected every 15 min via the cannula for 90 min.

RESULTS: GES with trains of pulses at a pulse width of 4 ms or higher was able to entrain gastric slow waves. Two-channel GES was about 50% more efficient than single-channel GES in entraining gastric slow waves. Two-channel but not single-channel GES with trains of pulses was capable of accelerating gastric emptying in healthy dogs. Compared with the control session, two-channel GES significantly increased gastric emptying of liquids at 15 min (79.0% ± 6.4% vs 61.3% ± 6.1%, P < 0.01), 30 min (83.2% ± 6.3 % vs 68.2% ± 6.9%, P < 0.01), 60 min (86.9% ± 5.5 % vs 74.1% ± 5.9%, P < 0.01), and 90 min (91.0% ± 3.4% vs 76.5% ± 5.9%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Two-channel GES with trains of pulses accelerates gastric emptying in healthy dogs and may have a therapeutic potential for the treatment of gastric motility disorders.

Effects of gastric electrical stimulation on hippocampus gastric distension responsive neurons and the expression of motilin and neuronal nitric oxide synthase in rats

AIM: To explore the effects of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) on gastric distension (GD) responsive neurons in rat hippocampus, and study the expression of neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) and motilin (MTL) in rat brain for exploring the central mechanism of GES.

METHODS: Fifty adult Wistar rats were used in this experiment. The effects of GES on GD responsive neurons in hippocampus CA1 area were observed by recording extracellular potentials of single neuron. GD responsive neurons were classified as GD-excitatory (GD-E) and GD-inhibitory (GD-I) neurons according to their responses to GD. GES with 3 sets of parameters were applied for 1 minute respectively: GES-A (6 mA, 0.3 ms, 40 Hz, 2 s-on, 3 s-off) with standard pulse trains; GES-B with increased wave width to 3 ms and GES-C with decreased frequency to 20 Hz. Two hours after GES-A was applied, we observed the expression of nNOS immunoreactive positive neurons in hippocampus by fluorescent immunohistochemistry and the content of motilin in rat brain by radioimmunoassay.

RESULTS: Eighty-seven neurons in hippocampus CA1 area were recorded and 79 responded to gastric distension (GD, 3-5 mL, 10-30 s). Of the 79 GD responsive neurons, 40 (50.6%) were GD-E neurons and 39 (49.4%) were GD-I ones. 62.5%, 100% and 62.3% of GD-E neurons were excited by GES-A, -B, and -C respectively. GES-B excited more GD-E neurons than GES-C (P = 0.016). Among the GD-I neurons, 63.6%, 85.7% and 50.0% neurons were excited by GES-A, -B and -C respectively. GES-C was noted to be less effective comparing with GES-A (P = 0.041) or GES-B (P = 0.021). Two hours after GES-A was used, the expressions of nNOS positive neurons significantly decreased in the CA1 and CA2-3 area of hippocampus (16.75 ± 0.91 cells/mm²vs 20.46 ± 1.30 cells/mm², P < 0.05; 14.91 ± 1.17 cells/mm²vs 18.73 ± 1.10 cells/mm², P < 0.05) and the content of motilin peptide decreased obviously in the hypothalamus (48.93 ± 6.98 fmol/mg vs 96.23 ± 12.93 fmol/mg, P < 0.01), mesencephalon (53.17 ± 8.96 fmol/mg vs 30.96 ± 4.86 fmol/mg, P < 0.05), medulla oblongata (46.27 ± 7.83 fmol/mg vs 73.86 ± 9.37 fmol/mg, P < 0.05) and hippocampus (32.23 ± 6.51 fmol/mg vs 62.72 ± 10.07 fmol/mg, P < 0.05) by radioimmunoassay.

CONCLUSION: GES may activate the gastric distension responsive neurons in hippocampus CA1 area and the excitatory effect of GES is related to the frequency and wave width of stimulation. Decreased expression of nNOS and motilin in the brain may also take part in the central mechanism of GES.

Effects of gastric electrical stimulation on responsive neurons to gastric distension and expression of orexin in rats

AIM: To investigate the effects of gastric electri-cal stimulation (GES) on responsive neurons to gastric distension (GD) in ventromedia hypotha-lamus (VMH) and the expression of orexin in rat brain.

METHODS: Fifty-two adult Wistar rats were used in this experiment. The effects of GES on GD responsive neurons in VMH were observed by recording extracellular potentials of single neuron. GD responsive neurons were classified as GD-excitatory (GD-E) and GD-inhibitory (GD-I) ones according to their responses to GD. GES with three sets of parameters were applied for one minute respectively: GES1 (6 mA, 0.3 ms, 40 Hz, 2 s-on, 3 s-off) with standard pulse trains; GES2 with reduced on-time to 0.1 s and GES3 with decreased frequency to 20 Hz. After GES1 was using for 2 h, we observed the expression of orexin-A immunoreactive (orexin-A-IR) positive neurons in lateral hypothalamus area (LHA) by fluorescent immunohistochemistry and the content of orexin in rat brain by radioimmunoassay.

RESULTS: Ninety neurons in VMH were recorded, of which 82 (85.41%) responded to GD (3-5 mL, 10-30 s). Of the 82 GD responsive neurons, 31 (37.8%) were GD-E neurons and 51 (62.2%) were GD-I neurons. 55.0%, 17.6%, and 14.3% of GD-E neurons were excited by GES1, GES2, and GES3 respectively. More GD-E neurons were excited by GES1 than by GES2 and GES3 (P = 0.002 and 0.016, respectively). Of the GD-I neurons, 63.6%, 37.9%, and 51.9% neurons were excited by GES1, GES2, and GES3, respectively. GES2 was noted to be less effective in comparison with GES1 (P = 0.043). After GES1 was in application for 2 h, the levels of orexin-A-IR positive neurons were significantly decreased in LHA as comopared with those in control group (6.97 ± 1.51/0.1 mm2 vs 26.62 ± 8.30/0.1 mm2, P < 0.01), and the content of orexin peptide was decreased obviously in the hypothalamus (112.54 ± 11.58 fmol/mg vs 185.23 ± 15.22 fmol/mg, P < 0.01), mesencephalon (71.95 ± 8.45 fmol/mg vs 98.48 ± 12.02 fmol/mg, P < 0.05), medulla oblongata (72.36 ± 6.58 fmol/mg vs 101.29 ± 15.22 fmol/mg, P < 0.05), solitary tract nucleus (69.12 ± 4.99 fmol/mg vs 89.21 ± 9.23 fmol/mg, P < 0.05) by radioimmunoassay. However, the content of orexin peptide had no significant change in pons.

CONCLUSION: GES may activate the GD responsive neurons in VMH and the excitatory effect of GES is related to the frequency and time of stimulation. Decreased expression of orexin in the brain may also take part in the central mechanism of GES.