Burton-Murray, Helen

ABSTRACT Background Patients with gastroparesis (Gp) can have a variety of symptoms. Apart from use of prokinetics, symptomatic therapies for the predominant symptom (PrS) are used. Aims (1) To classify Gp patients based on their PrS; (2) To determine differences in Gp symptoms, gastric emptying (GE), quality of life (QOL), treatments, and symptom improvement among Gp patients with different PrS. Methods Gp patients were enrolled in a multicenter registry and followed for 96‐weeks. Patients recorded their PrS and completed questionnaires assessing symptoms and QOL at enrollment and at follow up visits. Results Of 1013 Gp patients (361 diabetic, 607 idiopathic, 45 post‐fundoplication), the PrS were nausea (31%), vomiting (20%), abdominal pain (20%), bloating (9%), fullness (4%), GERD (4%), constipation (3%). Abdominal pain was more often a PrS in idiopathics, whereas vomiting was more often a PrS in diabetics. QOL scores were lower in the abdominal pain PrS group. PrS was associated with greater use of directed symptomatic treatment (antiemetic agents and gastric electrical stimulation for nausea and vomiting, prokinetic agents for vomiting and fullness, and constipation medications for constipation). Of 555 patients followed over 48 weeks, GCSI improved by ≥ 1 in 26% overall, more often in patients with initial PrS of nausea (32%) and bloating (35%) and less often for initial PrS of fullness (13%) or abdominal pain (15%). Conclusions In Gp patients, the most common PrS were nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. PrS is associated with QOL, treatments utilized, and patient outcomes. Thus, the PrS of a patient with Gp provides useful information about their present condition and future outcome.

Abstract Transition services—programs that support adolescents and young adults (AYAs) as they move from a child‐centered to a more autonomous, adult‐orientated healthcare system—have been associated with improved short‐ and long‐term healthcare outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of evidence exploring transition services within the neurogastroenterology and motility (NGM) field. The overall aim of this article, endorsed by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, is to promote a discussion about the role of transition services for patients with NGM disorders. The AYAs addressed herein are those who have: (a) a ROME positive disorder of gut–brain interaction (DGBI), (b) a primary or secondary motility disorder (including those with motility disorders that have been surgically managed), or (c) an artificial feeding requirement (parenteral or enteral tube feeding) to manage malnutrition secondary to categories (a) or (b). The issues explored in this position paper include the specific physical and psychological healthcare needs of patients with NGM disorders; key healthcare professionals who should form part of a secondary care NGM transition service; the triadic relationship between healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients; approaches to selecting patients who may benefit most from transition care; methods to assess transition readiness; and strategies with which to facilitate transfer of care between healthcare professionals. Key areas for future research are also addressed, including the construction of NGM‐specific transition readiness questionnaires, tools to assess post‐transfer healthcare outcomes, and educational programs to train healthcare professionals about transition care in NGM.

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.