BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recurrent nausea and/or vomiting are common complications of diabetes mellitus. The conditions severely impact the quality of life of patients and often cause repeated admissions to hospital incurring significant healthcare costs. If standard treatment fails, gastric electrical stimulation (GES) may be offered in selected cases, as a minimally invasive, but expensive, therapeutic option. Our aims are to evaluate the clinical effect and the cost-utility of GES as a treatment for severe diabetic recurrent nausea and/or vomiting. METHODS: Among 33 diabetes patients implanted with GES because of recurrent nausea and/or vomiting, 30 were available for evaluation. The effect of treatment was assessed prospectively using symptom-diaries and the SF-36 questionnaires at baseline, after 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly. The number of days in hospital due to symptoms related to gastrointestinal dysfunction was calculated using hospital records 12 months prior to and 12 months after implantation. RESULTS: The surgical procedures were performed without mortality or major complications. Six months after surgery 78% of the respondents had at least 50% reduction in time with nausea and 48% had at least 50% reduction in days with vomiting. Symptom relief persisted at follow-up after at least 4 years. Quality adjusted life years improved after GES, which was cost-effective after 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: GES reduces symptoms and improves quality of life in diabetes patients with recurrent nausea and/or vomiting. The procedure is supposed as cost-effective over a 2-year time horizon.
Diabetes Complications ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Electric Stimulation* ; Follow-Up Studies ; Health Care Costs ; Hospital Records ; Humans ; Mortality ; Nausea* ; Prospective Studies ; Quality of Life ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Vomiting*

Background/Aims: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) often suffer from gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, but these correlate poorly to established objective GI motility measures. Our aim is to perform a detailed evaluation of potential measures of gastric and small intestinal motility in patients with DM type 1 and severe GI symptoms. Methods: Twenty patients with DM and 20 healthy controls (HCs) were included. GI motility was examined with a 3-dimensional-Transit capsule, while organ volumes were determined by CT scans. Results: Patients with DM and HCs did not differ with regard to median gastric contraction frequency (DM: 3.0 contractions/minute [interquartile range {IQR}, 2.9-3.0]; HCs: 2.9 [IQR, 2.8-3.1]; P= 0.725), amplitude of gastric contractions (DM: 9 mm [IQR, 8-11]; HCs: 11 mm (IQR, 9-12); P = 0.151) or fasting volume of the stomach wall (DM: 149 cm3 [IQR, 112-187]; HCs: 132 cm3 [IQR, 107-154]; P= 0.121). Median gastric emptying time was prolonged in patients (DM: 3.3 hours [IQR, 2.6-4.6]; HCs: 2.4 hours [IQR, 1.8-2.7];P= 0.002). No difference was found in small intestinal transit time (DM: 5 hours [IQR, 3.7-5.6]; HCs: 4.8 hours [IQR, 3.9-6.0]; P = 0.883). However, patients with DM had significantly larger volume of the small intestinal wall (DM: 623 cm3 [IQR, 487-766]; HCs: 478 cm 3 [IQR, 393-589]; P = 0.003). Among patients, 13 (68%) had small intestinal wall volume and 9 (50%) had gastric emptying time above the upper 95% percentile of HCs. Conclusion In our study, gastric emptying time and volume of the small intestinal wall appeared to be the best objective measures in patients with DM type 1 and symptoms and gastroenteropathy.

Background/Aims: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) often suffer from gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, but these correlate poorly to established objective GI motility measures. Our aim is to perform a detailed evaluation of potential measures of gastric and small intestinal motility in patients with DM type 1 and severe GI symptoms. Methods: Twenty patients with DM and 20 healthy controls (HCs) were included. GI motility was examined with a 3-dimensional-Transit capsule, while organ volumes were determined by CT scans. Results: Patients with DM and HCs did not differ with regard to median gastric contraction frequency (DM: 3.0 contractions/minute [interquartile range {IQR}, 2.9-3.0]; HCs: 2.9 [IQR, 2.8-3.1]; P= 0.725), amplitude of gastric contractions (DM: 9 mm [IQR, 8-11]; HCs: 11 mm (IQR, 9-12); P = 0.151) or fasting volume of the stomach wall (DM: 149 cm3 [IQR, 112-187]; HCs: 132 cm3 [IQR, 107-154]; P= 0.121). Median gastric emptying time was prolonged in patients (DM: 3.3 hours [IQR, 2.6-4.6]; HCs: 2.4 hours [IQR, 1.8-2.7];P= 0.002). No difference was found in small intestinal transit time (DM: 5 hours [IQR, 3.7-5.6]; HCs: 4.8 hours [IQR, 3.9-6.0]; P = 0.883). However, patients with DM had significantly larger volume of the small intestinal wall (DM: 623 cm3 [IQR, 487-766]; HCs: 478 cm 3 [IQR, 393-589]; P = 0.003). Among patients, 13 (68%) had small intestinal wall volume and 9 (50%) had gastric emptying time above the upper 95% percentile of HCs. Conclusion In our study, gastric emptying time and volume of the small intestinal wall appeared to be the best objective measures in patients with DM type 1 and symptoms and gastroenteropathy.