Wise, Journey L.

Purpose of review Gastroparesis (GP) is a syndrome defined by symptoms and delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction. Typical symptoms include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and early satiety. Only one medication is currently FDA-approved for the treatment of GP. This review highlights recent research findings pertaining to GP and provides evidence to support a change in the current GP diagnostic and treatment paradigm. Recent findings An analysis of GP trials over the past four decades demonstrates the power of placebo and the need to perform longer studies with clearly defined patient populations. Two studies highlight the need to evaluate patients with suspected GP carefully and to perform gastric emptying studies properly. The misdiagnosis of GP symptoms is reviewed, preceded by a discussion of whether GP should be considered a disorder of gut-brain interaction. Finally, new data on therapies that target the pylorus are highlighted. Summary Gastroparesis is frequently over-diagnosed and incorrectly diagnosed. Performing a proper gastric emptying study which adheres to standard protocol, and accurately interpreting the results in the context of the individual patient, are critical to making an accurate diagnosis of GP. The treatment paradigm needs to shift from simply aiming to accelerate gastric emptying to treating global symptoms of a chronic syndrome that may represent gut-brain dysfunction in many patients.

AbstractBackgroundAbdominal bloating and distension are prevalent gastrointestinal symptoms. Our aim was to design and validate a questionnaire to reliably measure the multiple symptom components of bloating and distension in the outpatient setting.MethodsA 45‐item questionnaire was developed after an extensive literature review. Face and content validity were established through expert review and a focus group. Validation was achieved by administering an identical questionnaire 1 week apart. Data were assessed using standard methods.Key resultsForty one patients returned both questionnaires (85% women; mean age = 44 years). Respondents reported a variety of diagnoses, including irritable bowel syndrome (63%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (54%), functional dyspepsia (27%), small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (22%), and gastroparesis (17%). Test‐retest reliability revealed excellent agreement (k ≥ 0.81) and substantial agreement (0.61 ≤ k < 0.81) for 29% and 43% of categorical questions, respectively. Alternate‐parallel form reliability was supported by association between responses for questions that evaluated missing school/work and questions that evaluated symptom impact on daily activities (p < 0.05). Patients who missed school/work due to bloating symptoms were more likely to report a severe impact on their ability to enjoy life (p < 0.05) and their overall well‐being (p < 0.01). Contingency analyses revealed an association between overall 7‐day symptom severity and impact on daily activities (p < 0.001), enjoying life (p < 0.001), and overall well‐being (p < 0.001).Conclusions and InferencesThis novel questionnaire demonstrated good validity and reliability in patients with symptoms of bloating and distension. The questionnaire was easy to use and score, making it a potentially useful tool for both research studies and clinical purposes.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric-emptying scintigraphy (GES), routinely used to measure gastric emptying, is an essential tool to diagnose gastroparesis. An accurate diagnosis of gastroparesis relies upon the GES being performed according to a validated protocol. Jointly published protocol guidelines have been available for over a decade; however, the extent to which these guidelines are adhered to is unknown. This study aimed to assess national compliance with established GES protocol guidelines. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire addressing key protocol measures outlined in the published Procedure Guideline for Adult Solid-Meal Gastric Emptying Study 3.0. Survey questions addressed patient information collection (15), patient preparation and procedure protocol (16), meal content and preparation (7), imaging (3), interpretation (4), and reporting (7). Demographic data was also collected. The anonymous questionnaire was distributed electronically to members of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging (SNMMI) and non-member recipients of the SNMMI daily email newsletter. One response per medical institution was permitted. Data were entered manually and statistically assessed using JMP®, Version 14.0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. RESULTS: 121 medical institutions (MI) responded; 49 (40.4%) were academic/teaching medical centers. The mean number of annual GES procedures was 199.9 (range, 5 to 2000 GES/year). On average, MI performed 64% (33.5/52) of protocol measures according to guidelines while academic medical centers performed 61% (31.5/52) of protocol measures according to guidelines. Only 59% of MI use the validated meal. 42% of MI reported stopping imaging prior to the validated 4-hour interval. Only 16% of MI test blood glucose levels prior to GES while 71% cancel or reschedule GES if blood glucose levels are above the validated cut-off. 68% of MI ask patients if they take narcotic pain medications; only 49% require that patients stop taking narcotic pain medications at least two days prior to the GES. Only 4.5% of MI perform GES while adhering to 3 critical measures: validated study duration; controlling blood glucose levels; and properly restricting medication use. CONCLUSION: Low compliance with GES protocol guidelines, even among academic medical centers, raises the likely possibility of misdiagnosis and thus improper management of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. These results highlight a need for increased awareness of protocol guidelines.