Is gastric electrical stimulation superior to standard pharmacologic therapy in improving GI symptoms, healthcare resources, and long‐term health care benefits?

Abstract Context: Severe upper gastrointestinal (GI) motor disorders, including gastroparesis (GP), can consume significant health care resources. Many patients are refractory to traditional drug therapy. Objective: To compare symptoms, healthcare resource utilization and costs in two groups of patients with the symptoms of GP: those treated via gastric electrical stimulation (GES) and those treated with traditional pharmacological agents in an intensive outpatient program (MED). Design: A long‐term comparison of patients with devices ( n = 9) vs intensive medical therapy ( n = 9). Setting and patients: A total of 18 eligible patients with the symptoms of GP reported for 1‐year baseline and long‐term treatment for 3 years. Interventions: Patients with the symptoms of GP were treated by a GES or intensive medical therapy (MED). Main outcome measures: GP Symptoms, healthcare resource utilization using investigator‐derived independent outcome measure score (IDIOMS) and total hospital (inpatient and outpatient) billing costs. Results: Gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly different from baseline ( F = 3.03, P < 0.017) with GP patients treated via GES showing more sustained improvement over 36 months than those treated via MED. Healthcare resource usage, measured via the IDIOMS, significantly improved at 12, 24 and 36 month follow‐up for GES patients ( F = 10.49, P < 0.001), compared with patients receiving medical therapy, who demonstrated further deterioration. GP patients treated via GES also proved superior to medical therapy at 24 and 36 months with regard to decreased costs ( F = 4.85, P < 0.001). Within group comparisons indicated significantly reduced hospital days for both patient groups; however, no statistical differences were noted between groups in terms of hospital days. Three of nine patients in the MED group died primarily from i.v. access related problems; none of the GES patients died. Conclusion: We conclude that GES is more effective in improving long‐term GI symptoms and costs, and decreasing use of healthcare resources than intensive medical therapy, in this sample of patients with the symptoms of GP followed for 3 years. Certain patients with GP form a high‐risk group in terms of costs, quality of life, morbidity and mortality.