Gastric electrical stimulation for children with intractable nausea and gastroparesis
ABSTRACT Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) has been performed in adults as a treatment of refractory nausea and vomiting in patients who have failed medical treatment, but has not been used in children.
Nine patients with chronic nausea and vomiting with a mean age of 14 years were evaluated for temporary GES. All 9 patients subsequently underwent placement of a temporary followed by permanent GES device. Symptoms were recorded at baseline, after temporary GES, and then after permanent GES using a Likert scale for gastroparesis. Statistical analysis was performed using a paired Student's t test.
At baseline, all patients were symptomatic and most had delayed solid gastric emptying. As a group, there was a significant improvement in combined symptoms score (P = .04), nausea (P = .039), and vomiting (P = .0016). Gastric emptying and electrogastrogram values did not change significantly. Follow-up ranged from 8 to 42 months, with 7 of the 9 patients reporting sustained improvement in symptoms and improved quality of life.
Gastric electrical stimulation can be successfully applied to adolescents with intractable nausea and gastroparesis symptoms who fail medical therapy. There is a significant improvement in symptoms over a prolonged period, and there are no adverse effects of the GES. Long-term efficacy of this therapy in children needs to be established.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Thomas L Abell, Mar 19, 2014
- SourceAvailable from: Edy Soffer
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Comparable improvement in symptoms and QOL in both groups. Islam et al, 27 2008 Evaluation of GES in pediatric population. 8-42 mo 9 (average age, 14 yr) Improvement in symptoms and QOL. "
ABSTRACT: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for gastroparesis has been in use for more than a decade. Multiple publications, consisting almost entirely of open label single center studies, reported a beneficial effect on symptoms, quality of life and nutritional status. Some predictors of better response to GES have been lately identified, primarily diabetic etiology and nausea and vomiting as the predominant symptoms. However, individual response to GES remains difficult to predict. The mechanism of action of GES remains poorly understood. Stimulation parameters approved in clinical practice do not regulate gastric slow wave activity and have inconsistent effect on gastric emptying. Despite such limitations, gastric electrical stimulation remains a helpful intervention in some patients with severe gastroparesis who fail to respond to medical therapy.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility 04/2012; 18(2):131-7. DOI:10.5056/jnm.2012.18.2.131 · 2.70 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Development of gastric electrical stimulation techniques for treatment of gastric dysmotility syndromes and obesity has been a long-standing goal of investigators and clinicians. Depending on stimulus parameters and sites of stimulation, such methods have a range of theoretical benefits including entrainment of intrinsic gastric electrical activity, eliciting propagating contractions and reducing symptomatology in patients with gastroparesis and reducing appetite and food intake in individuals with morbid obesity. Additionally, gastric stimulation parameters have extragastrointestinal effects including alteration of systemic hormonal and autonomic neural activity and modulation of afferent nerve pathways projecting to the central nervous system that may represent important mechanisms of action. Numerous case series and smaller numbers of controlled trials suggest clinical benefits in these two conditions, however better controlled trials are mandated to confirm their efficacy. Current research is focusing on novel stimulation methods to better control symptoms in gastroparesis and promote weight reduction in morbid obesity.Neurogastroenterology and Motility 04/2009; 21(3):229-43. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01277.x · 3.42 Impact Factor
- Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition 06/2009; 49(5):635-8. DOI:10.1097/MPG.0b013e31818b0dcc · 2.87 Impact Factor