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

Scott Bills; Amal Shine; Jane Claire Williams; Prateek Mathur; Archana Kedar; Michael Daniels; Thomas L Abell

doi:10.1007/s10620-024-08303-1

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

Dig Dis Sci. 2024 Apr 9. doi: 10.1007/s10620-024-08303-1. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Scott Bills¹, Amal Shine², Jane Claire Williams³, Prateek Mathur², Archana Kedar², Michael Daniels⁴, Thomas L Abell⁵

Affiliations

¹ University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
² Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Louisville, 220 Abraham Flexner, 1258 Frazier, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
³ GI Associates, Jackson, MS, USA.
⁴ School of Public Health and Information Sciences, Department of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA.
⁵ Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Louisville, 220 Abraham Flexner, 1258 Frazier, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. thomas.abell@louisville.edu.

PMID: 38594432
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-024-08303-1

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Cyclic vomiting syndrome; Diabetes; Gastric electrical stimulation; Gastroparesis; Quality of life.