Gastric electrical stimulation versus per-oral pyloromyotomy for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with gastroparesis : An observational study of two cohorts
© 2023 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd..
BACKGROUND: Both gastric electrical stimulation (GES) and gastric-peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) can be offered to patients with gastroparesis and predominant nausea and vomiting. The study's aim was to compare GES and G-POEM efficacy on nausea and vomiting scores in patients with gastroparesis.
METHODS: Two multicenter cohorts of patients with medically refractory gastroparesis with predominant nausea and vomiting (defined as a score >2 on nausea and vomiting subscale that varied from 0 to 4) were treated either with GES (n = 34) or G-POEM (n = 30) and were followed for 24 months (M). Clinical response was defined as a decrease of ≥1 point in nausea and vomiting subscale without premature exclusion due to switch from one to the other technique before M24. Changes in symptomatic scales and quality of life were also monitored.
KEY RESULTS: Patients from both groups were comparable although the mean score of nausea and vomiting subscale was higher in GES (3.0) compared to G-POEM group (2.6; p = 0.01). At M24, clinical response was achieved in 21/34 (61.7%) patients with GES and in 21/30 (70.0%; p = 0.60) patients with G-POEM. Mean scores of nausea and vomiting subscale decreased at M24 in both GES (from 3.0 to 1.6; p < 0.001) and G-POEM (from 2.6 to 1.2; p < 0.001) groups, although there was no difference between groups (difference adjusted from baseline: -0.28 [-0.77; 0.19]; p = 0.24). Likewise, symptomatic and quality of life scores improved at M24 in both groups, without difference according to treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: At M24, we did not observe significant difference in efficacy of GES and G-POEM in medically refractory gastroparesis with predominant nausea and vomiting.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:35 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Neurogastroenterology and motility - 35(2023), 7 vom: 01. Juli, Seite e14565 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Gourcerol, Guillaume [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 14.06.2023 Date Revised 25.06.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/nmo.14565 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM354662295 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM354662295 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226062711.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/nmo.14565 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1182.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM354662295 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36961085 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gourcerol, Guillaume |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Gastric electrical stimulation versus per-oral pyloromyotomy for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with gastroparesis |b An observational study of two cohorts |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 14.06.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 25.06.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Both gastric electrical stimulation (GES) and gastric-peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) can be offered to patients with gastroparesis and predominant nausea and vomiting. The study's aim was to compare GES and G-POEM efficacy on nausea and vomiting scores in patients with gastroparesis | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Two multicenter cohorts of patients with medically refractory gastroparesis with predominant nausea and vomiting (defined as a score >2 on nausea and vomiting subscale that varied from 0 to 4) were treated either with GES (n = 34) or G-POEM (n = 30) and were followed for 24 months (M). Clinical response was defined as a decrease of ≥1 point in nausea and vomiting subscale without premature exclusion due to switch from one to the other technique before M24. Changes in symptomatic scales and quality of life were also monitored | ||
| 520 | |a KEY RESULTS: Patients from both groups were comparable although the mean score of nausea and vomiting subscale was higher in GES (3.0) compared to G-POEM group (2.6; p = 0.01). At M24, clinical response was achieved in 21/34 (61.7%) patients with GES and in 21/30 (70.0%; p = 0.60) patients with G-POEM. Mean scores of nausea and vomiting subscale decreased at M24 in both GES (from 3.0 to 1.6; p < 0.001) and G-POEM (from 2.6 to 1.2; p < 0.001) groups, although there was no difference between groups (difference adjusted from baseline: -0.28 [-0.77; 0.19]; p = 0.24). Likewise, symptomatic and quality of life scores improved at M24 in both groups, without difference according to treatment group | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: At M24, we did not observe significant difference in efficacy of GES and G-POEM in medically refractory gastroparesis with predominant nausea and vomiting | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Observational Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Multicenter Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a chronic nausea and vomiting syndrome | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gastric electrical stimulation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gastric emptying | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gastroparesis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gonzalez, Jean Michel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bonaz, Bruno |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fontaine, Sébastien |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zerbib, Frank |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mion, Francois |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Basile, Paul |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gillibert, André |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Labonde, Amélie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Soliman, Heithem |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vitton, Véronique |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Coffin, Benoit |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jacques, Jérémie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Neurogastroenterology and motility |d 1994 |g 35(2023), 7 vom: 01. Juli, Seite e14565 |w (DE-627)NLM075187337 |x 1365-2982 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:35 |g year:2023 |g number:7 |g day:01 |g month:07 |g pages:e14565 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14565 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 35 |j 2023 |e 7 |b 01 |c 07 |h e14565 | ||