Abell, Thomas L.

Gastroparesis is characterized by symptoms suggesting retention of food in the stomach with objective evidence of delayed gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction in the gastric outflow. This condition is increasingly encountered in clinical practice. These guidelines summarize perspectives on the risk factors, diagnosis, and management of gastroparesis in adults (including dietary, pharmacological, device, and interventions directed at the pylorus), and they represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation process. When the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, we used expert consensus to develop key concept statements. These guidelines should be considered as preferred but are not the only approaches to these conditions.

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.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with gastroparesis (GP) and functional dyspepsia (FD) have similar symptoms, but the pathophysiology of postprandial symptoms remains uncertain.AimsTo compare symptoms and gastric myoelectrical activity (GMA) after liquid and solid test meals in patients with GP and FD.MethodsPatients enrolled in the Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium Registry were studied. Clinical characteristics were measured with standard questionnaires. GP was determined by 4‐h solid‐phase gastric scintigraphy. GMA was measured using electrogastrography before and after ingestion of a water load or nutrient bar on separate days. Symptoms were measured on visual analog scales. GMA responses to the water load for individual patients were also determined.Results284 patients with GP and 113 with FD were identified who ingested both test meals. Patients with GP and FD had similar maximal tolerated volumes of water [mean (SD) 378 (218) ml vs. 402 (226) ml,p = 0.23] and reported similar intensity of fullness, nausea, bloating, and abdominal discomfort after the test meals. Twenty‐six percent and 19% of the patients with GP and FD, respectively, ingested subthreshold (<238 ml) volumes of water (p = 0.15). Gastric dysrhythmias were recorded in 66% of the GP and 65% of the FD patients after the water load. Symptoms and GMA were similar in both groups after ingestion of the nutrient bar.ConclusionThe similarity in GMA responses and symptoms after ingestion of solid or liquid test meals suggests GP and FD are closely related gastric neuromuscular disorders.

AbstractBackgroundAutoimmunity may play a role in the pathogenesis of gastroparesis in a subset of patients. Antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing is often used to screen for autoimmune disorders.Aims1) Determine prevalence of a positive ANA in patients with gastroparesis; 2) Describe characteristics of idiopathic gastroparesis patients with positive ANA.MethodsPatients were assessed with gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES), symptom assessment via Patient Assessment of Upper GI Symptoms [PAGI‐SYM], and blood tests—ANA, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C‐reactive protein (CRP).ResultsPositive ANA was seen in 148 of 893 (17%) patients with gastroparesis, being similar in idiopathic (16% of 536 patients), T1DM (16% of 162), T2DM (18% of 147), and postfundoplication (19% of 48 patients) gastroparesis. Among 536 patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, ANA titer 1:40–1:80 was seen in 33 (6%) patients, 1:160–1:320 in 36 (7%) patients, and ≥1:640 in 17 (3%) patients. Increasing ANA titer was associated with female gender (p = 0.05), Hispanic ethnicity (p = 0.02), comorbid rheumatoid arthritis (p = 0.02), systemic sclerosis (p = 0.004), and elevated ESR (p = 0.007). ANA positivity was associated with lower total GCSI (p = 0.007) and lower nausea/vomiting subscale (p = 0.0005), but not related to gastric emptying.ConclusionsThe prevalence of a positive ANA in patients with gastroparesis was high at ~17% and did not differ significantly based on etiology. In idiopathic patients, ANA positivity was associated with rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, and elevated ESR. ANA‐positive gastroparesis represents a subset who often have other autoimmune symptoms or disorders, but less severe nausea and vomiting.

AbstractBackgroundThe classic clinical picture of gastroparesis is a symptomatic patient losing weight. In addition, a number of patients with delayed gastric emptying are obese and/or gaining weight. Our aim was to investigate the factors impacting body weight in patients with idiopathic gastroparesis.MethodsIn patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, detailed history and weight were acquired at enrollment and after 48 weeks. Questionnaires assessed symptoms, food intake, physical activity, and quality of life. Patients underwent laboratory testing, gastric emptying scintigraphy, and water load testing.ResultsOf 138 patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, 10% were underweight (BMI < 18.5), 39% were normal weight (BMI 18.5‐25), 20% were overweight with BMI 25 to 30 kg/m2, and 29% were obese with BMI > 30 kg/m2. Body weight at enrollment was positively associated with oral caloric consumption (P < .001), following a gastroparesis diet (P = .04), nutrition consultation (P = .001), upper abdominal pain (P = .01); and negatively associated with energy expenditure (P = .05), alcohol use (P = .003) and severity of bloating (P < .001). When followed over 48 weeks, 53% patients stayed stable (within 5% of baseline weight), 30% gained, and 17% lost weight. Weight gain over 48 weeks was positively associated with oral caloric consumption (P = .003) and constipation severity (P = .005) at enrollment, and negatively associated with lower abdominal pain severity (P = .007) at enrollment, and associated with improvement in inability to finish meal score (P < .001) at 48 weeks.ConclusionsIn this series of patients with idiopathic gastroparesis, 10% were underweight whereas 29% were obese. Over 48 weeks, 30% of patients increased their body weight ≥ 5%. Diet, activity, and symptoms are important factors associated with body weight in patients with idiopathic gastroparesis.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding factors that impair quality of life (QOL) in gastroparesis is important for clinical management. Aims: (a) Determine QOL in patients with gastroparesis; (b) Determine factors that impair QOL.MethodsGastroparetic patientsAQ6 underwent history and questionnaires assessing symptoms (PAGI‐SYM and Rome III), QOL (SF‐36v2 and PAGI‐QOL), depression (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]), and anxiety (State Trait Anxiety InventoryAQ7).Key Results715 gastroparesis patients (256 diabetic (DG), 459 idiopathic (IG)) were evaluated. SF‐36 physical component (PC) score averaged 33.3 ± 10.5; 41% had impaired score <30. SF‐36 PC scores were similar between diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis. Impaired SF‐36 PC associated with increased nausea/vomiting and upper abdominal pain subscores, acute onset of symptoms, higher number of comorbidities, use of narcotic pain medications, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). SF‐36 mental component (MC) score averaged 38.9 ± 13.0; 26% had impaired score <30. Poor SF‐36 MC associated with diabetic etiology, higher Beck depression inventory, and state anxiety scores. PAGI‐QOL score averaged 2.6 ± 1.1; 50% had a score of <2.6. Low PAGI‐QOL associated with higher fullness, bloating, and upper abdominal pain subscores, more depression and Trait anxiety, smoking cigarettes, need for nutritional support, progressively worsening symptoms and periodic exacerbations.Conclusions & InferencesMultiple measures show poor QOL present in gastroparesis. Several areas impacted on reduced QOL: (a) Symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as IBS; (b) Etiology and acute onset and progressively worsening symptoms; (c) Comorbidities and psychological factors such as anxiety and depression; (d) Patient‐related factors such as smoking. Targeting the modifiable factors may improve patient outcomes in gastroparesis.

AbstractBackgroundAutonomic dysfunction can be present in patients with idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis. The role of autonomic dysfunction relating to gastric emptying and upper gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with gastroparesis and chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting (CUNV) remains unclear. The aim of our study is to evaluate autonomic function in patients with gastroparesis and CUNV with respect to etiology, gastric emptying and symptom severity.MethodsWe studied 242 patients with chronic gastroparetic symptoms recruited at eight centers. All patients had a gastric emptying scintigraphy within 6 months of the study. Symptom severity was assessed using the gastroparesis cardinal symptom index. Autonomic function testing was performed at baseline enrollment using the ANX 3.0 autonomic monitoring system which measures heart rate variability and respiratory activity measurements.Key ResultsLow sympathetic response to challenge (Valsalva or standing) was the most common abnormality seen impacting 89% diabetic and 74% idiopathic patients. Diabetics compared to idiopathics, exhibited greater global hypofunction with sympathetic (OR = 4.7, 95% CI 2.2‐10.3; P < .001) and parasympathetic (OR = 7.2, 95% CI 3.4‐15.0; P < .001) dysfunction. Patients with delayed gastric emptying were more likely to have paradoxic parasympathetic excessive during sympathetic challenge [(Valsalva or standing) 40% vs. 26%, P = .05]. Patients with more severe symptoms exhibited greater parasympathetic dysfunction compared to those with mild‐moderate symptoms: resting sympathovagal balance [LFa/RFa 1.8 (1.0‐3.1) vs. 1.2 (0.6‐2.3), P = .006)] and standing parasympathetic activity [0.4 (0.1‐0.8) vs. 0.6 (0.2‐1.7); P = .03].ConclusionsAutonomic dysfunction was common in patients with gastroparesis and CUNV. Parasympathetic dysfunction was associated with delayed gastric emptying and more severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Conversely, sympathetic hypofunction was associated with milder symptoms.InferencesGastroparesis and CUNV may be a manifestation of GI autonomic dysfunction or imbalance, such that sympathetic dysfunction occurs early on in the manifestation of chronic upper GI symptoms, while parasympathetic dysfunction results in more severe symptoms and delayed gastric emptying.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetic gastroparesis (Gp) occurs more often in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) than in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Other diabetic end-organ complications include peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy (together termed triopathy ). This study determines the prevalence of diabetic complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, and peripheral neuropathy) in diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp, assessing the differences between T1DM and T2DM and delayed and normal gastric emptying (GE). METHODS: Diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp underwent history and physical examination, GE scintigraphy, electrogastrography with water load, autonomic function testing, and questionnaires assessing symptoms and peripheral neuropathy. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp were studied: 59 with T1DM and 74 with T2DM and 103 with delayed GE and 30 without delayed GE. The presence of retinopathy (37% vs 24%; P = 0.13), nephropathy (19% vs 11%; P = 0.22), and peripheral neuropathy (53% vs 39%; P = 0.16) was not significantly higher in T1DM than in T2DM; however, triopathies (all 3 complications together) were seen in 10% of T1DM and 3% of T2DM ( P = 0.04). Diabetic patients with delayed GE had increased prevalence of retinopathy (36% vs 10%; P = 0.006) and number of diabetic complications (1.0 vs 0.5; P = 0.009); however, 39% of diabetic patients with delayed GE did not have any diabetic complications. DISCUSSION: In diabetic patients with symptoms of Gp, delayed GE was associated with the presence of retinopathy and the total number of diabetic complications. Only 10% of patients with T1DM and 3% of those with T2DM had triopathy of complications, and 39% of diabetic patients with Gp did not have any diabetic complications. Thus, the presence of diabetic complications should raise awareness for Gp in either T1DM or T2DM; however, diabetic Gp frequently occurs without other diabetic complications.

Abstract Background Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for treating gastroparesis symptoms is controversial. Methods We studied 319 idiopathic or diabetic gastroparesis symptom patients from the Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium (GpCRC) observational studies: 238 without GES and 81 with GES. We assessed the effects of GES using change in GCSI total score and nausea/vomiting subscales between baseline and 48 weeks. We used propensity score methods to control for imbalances in patient characteristics between comparison groups. Key Results GES patients were clinically worse (40% severe vs. 18% for non‐GES; P < .001); worse PAGI‐QOL (2.2. vs. 2.6; P = .003); and worse GCSI total scores (3.5 vs. 2.8; P < .001). We observed improvements in 48‐week GCSI total scores for GES vs. non‐GES: improvement by ≥ 1‐point (RR = 1.63; 95% CI = (1.14, 2.33); P = .01) and change from enrollment (difference = −0.5 (−0.8, −0.3); P < .001). When adjusting for patient characteristics, symptom scores were smaller and not statistically significant: improvement by ≥ 1‐point (RR = 1.29 (0.88, 1.90); P = .20) and change from the enrollment (difference = −0.3 (−0.6, 0.0); P = .07). Of the individual items, the nausea improved by ≥ 1 point (RR = 1.31 (1.03, 1.67); P = .04). Patients with GCSI score ≥ 3.0 tended to improve more than those with score < 3.0. (Adjusted P = 0.02). Conclusions and Inferences This multicenter study of gastroparesis patients found significant improvements in gastroparesis symptoms among GES patients. Accounting for imbalances in patient characteristics, only nausea remained significant. Patients with greater symptoms at baseline improved more after GES. A much larger sample of patients is needed to fully evaluate symptomatic responses and to identify patients likely to respond to GES.