Bulat, Robert

ABSTRACT Introduction Chronic gastroduodenal disorders remain challenging to manage, and new diagnostic approaches are needed to better delineate underlying causes and guide therapeutic decisions. Body Surface Gastric Mapping (BSGM) technologies combine high‐resolution gastric myoelectrical activity measurements with symptom and psychological profiling to provide mechanistic insights into gastric motor and sensory dysfunction. An International Working Group convened to derive the first consensus classification of BSGM phenotypes (the “Auckland Classification”). Methods A Technical Group conducted a systematic literature and clinical database review to identify objective test biomarkers and candidate disease mechanisms. Evidence was synthesized across 50 studies (primarily in gastroparesis, chronic nausea and vomiting, and functional dyspepsia), and BSGM phenotypes were mapped to existing treatment guidelines. Subsequently, iterative review and development of consensus was performed by a Consensus Group composed of international clinical experts familiar with BSGM. Eleven statements underlying the classification were then derived and circulated as a final survey to establish agreement. Results Six BSGM phenotypes were endorsed: three defined by myoelectrical abnormalities (Dysrhythmic, High Frequency, and Low Meal Response) and three by characteristic symptom associations (Sensorimotor, Continuous, and Delayed Onset Symptoms). Published studies plausibly linked these phenotypes to mechanisms including interstitial cell of Cajal depletion, vagal impairment, hypomotility, visceral hypersensitivity, gut‐brain dysregulation, and small bowel dysfunction. Phenotypes were also mapped to existing mechanism‐based treatment guidelines. Ten out of the eleven statements had > 80% agreement. Conclusions The Auckland Classification, derived by international consensus, presents a structured framework for BSGM‐defined patient phenotypes. Evidence and mechanism‐based treatment options are suggested for each phenotype to provide a foundation for research, further validation, and a pathway for integrating BSGM into clinical care.

IMD0 and WLST were assessed for their clinical utility in assessing patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Low IMD0 is associated with less gastric retention and less heartburn. Volume of water consumed during WLST, while associated with IMD0, has associations with early satiety, postprandial fullness, loss of appetite, and nausea. IMD0 and WLST appear to overlap somewhat in their assessment of gastric physiology in adults with symptoms of gastroparesis but relate to different dyspeptic symptoms.

Summary Background Patients with gastroparesis and related disorders have symptoms including early satiety, postprandial fullness and bloating. Buspirone, a 5‐HT 1 receptor agonist, may improve fundic accommodation. Aim To determine if buspirone treatment improves early satiety and postprandial fullness in patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Methods This 4‐week multi‐centre clinical trial randomised patients with symptoms of gastroparesis and moderate‐to‐severe symptoms of fullness (Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index [GCSI] early satiety/postprandial fullness subscore [ES/PPF]) to buspirone (10 mg orally) or placebo three times per day. The primary outcome was a change in the ES/PPF from baseline to 4 weeks. The primary analysis was per protocol intention‐to‐treat ANCOVA of between‐group baseline vs. 4‐week differences (DoD) in ES/PPF adjusted for baseline ES/PPF. Results are reported using both nominal and Bonferroni (BF) p values. Results and conclusions Ninety‐six patients (47 buspirone, 49 placeboes; 92% female, 50% delayed gastric emptying, 39% diabetic) were enrolled. There was no between‐groups difference in the 4‐week ES/PPF primary outcome: −1.16 ± 1.25 (SD) on buspirone vs −1.03 ± 1.29 (SD) on placebo (mean DoD: −0.11 [95% CI: −0.68, 0.45]; p = 0.69). Buspirone performed better than placebo in patients with severe‐to‐very severe bloating at baseline compared to patients with none to moderate: (ES/PPF DoD = −0.65 vs. 1.58, p TX*GROUP = 0.003; p BF = 0.07). Among individual GCSI symptoms, only bloating appeared to improve with buspirone vs. placebo. Conclusions Patients with moderate‐to‐severe early satiety/postprandial fullness and other symptoms of gastroparesis did not benefit from buspirone treatment to improve the ES/PPF primary outcome compared with placebo. There was a suggestion of the benefit of buspirone in patients with more severe bloating. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0358714285.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with gastroparesis (Gp) may need enteral nutrition (EN) or exclusive parenteral nutrition (PN). Among patients with Gp, we aimed to (1) identify the frequency of EN and exclusive PN use and (2) explore characteristics of patients using EN and/or exclusive PN compared with those using oral nutrition (ON), including changes over 48 weeks.MethodsPatients with Gp underwent history and physical examination, gastric emptying scintigraphy, water load satiety testing (WLST), and questionnaires assessing gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life (QOL). Patients were observed 48 weeks.ResultsOf 971 patients with Gp (idiopathic, 579; diabetic, 336; post–Nissen fundoplication, 51), 939 (96.7%) were using ON only, 14 (1.4%) using exclusive PN, and 18 (1.9%) using EN. Compared with patients receiving ON, patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN were younger, had lower body mass index, and had greater symptom severity. Patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN had lower physical QOL but not mental QOL or Gp‐related QOL scores. Patients receiving exclusive PN and/or EN ingested less water during WLST but did not have worse gastric emptying. Of those who had been receiving exclusive PN and/or EN, 50% and 25%, respectively, resumed ON at 48‐week follow‐up.ConclusionsThis study describes patients with Gp requiring exclusive PN and/or EN for nutrition support, who represent a small (3.3%) but important subset of patients with Gp. Unique clinical and physiological parameters are associated with this subset and provide insight into the use of nutrition support in Gp.

Patients with delayed and normal gastric emptying (GE) had similar symptom profiles during gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES). Idiopathic patients with symptoms of gastroparesis had less gastric retention by GES; but more symptoms after GES meal and after water load satiety test (WLST) compared with diabetic patients. In patients with symptoms of gastroparesis, symptoms after WLST increased with decreasing water consumption. Early satiety and loss of appetite were associated with decreased water consumption during WLST. Thus, impaired accommodation and perhaps visceral hypersensitivity are important in explaining postprandial symptoms in gastroparesis.