Cargando…

Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis

Background/Aim: Hospitalizations due to gastroparesis have increased in the last 20 years with limited advancements in pharmacologic therapy. Although therapy primarily consists of prokinetic agents, little is known about their effects on hospital outcomes. The aim of our study was to determine whet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roe, Neil A, Sakaan, Sami, Swanson, Heather, Twilla, Jennifer D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5327917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28265483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21556660.2016.1278546
_version_ 1782510820843847680
author Roe, Neil A
Sakaan, Sami
Swanson, Heather
Twilla, Jennifer D
author_facet Roe, Neil A
Sakaan, Sami
Swanson, Heather
Twilla, Jennifer D
author_sort Roe, Neil A
collection PubMed
description Background/Aim: Hospitalizations due to gastroparesis have increased in the last 20 years with limited advancements in pharmacologic therapy. Although therapy primarily consists of prokinetic agents, little is known about their effects on hospital outcomes. The aim of our study was to determine whether common prokinetic therapies (metoclopramide and erythromycin) improve outcomes in gastroparesis patients. Methods: A retrospective review of adult patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of gastroparesis between 7 January 2011 and 7 January 2014 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received prokinetic therapy (PRO) during hospitalization or not (NO). Groups were compared to determine length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, and risk factors affecting these outcomes. Results: Of the 82 patients included in our study, 57 received prokinetic therapy. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.8 ± 4.2 days, with a significantly shorter LOS in the NO group (3.7 ± 1.9 vs. 6.7 ± 4.5; p = 0.002). Among patients studied, 30.5% were readmitted within 30 days from discharge with no significant reduction in the PRO group (35.1% PRO vs. 20% NO; p =0.23). Patients with idiopathic gastroparesis had significantly longer LOS (6.9 ± 4.6 vs. 4.2 ± 2.8; p = 0.003). In the PRO group, those who received intravenous (IV) therapy had a significantly shorter LOS (4.9 ± 2.5 IV vs. 8.0 ± 5.3 oral; p = 0.01). Conclusions: Treatment of gastroparesis patients with prokinetic agents did not shorten the LOS nor decrease 30-day readmission rates. In those receiving prokinetics, the IV route was associated with reduced LOS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5327917
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53279172017-03-06 Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis Roe, Neil A Sakaan, Sami Swanson, Heather Twilla, Jennifer D J Drug Assess Original Article Background/Aim: Hospitalizations due to gastroparesis have increased in the last 20 years with limited advancements in pharmacologic therapy. Although therapy primarily consists of prokinetic agents, little is known about their effects on hospital outcomes. The aim of our study was to determine whether common prokinetic therapies (metoclopramide and erythromycin) improve outcomes in gastroparesis patients. Methods: A retrospective review of adult patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of gastroparesis between 7 January 2011 and 7 January 2014 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received prokinetic therapy (PRO) during hospitalization or not (NO). Groups were compared to determine length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, and risk factors affecting these outcomes. Results: Of the 82 patients included in our study, 57 received prokinetic therapy. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.8 ± 4.2 days, with a significantly shorter LOS in the NO group (3.7 ± 1.9 vs. 6.7 ± 4.5; p = 0.002). Among patients studied, 30.5% were readmitted within 30 days from discharge with no significant reduction in the PRO group (35.1% PRO vs. 20% NO; p =0.23). Patients with idiopathic gastroparesis had significantly longer LOS (6.9 ± 4.6 vs. 4.2 ± 2.8; p = 0.003). In the PRO group, those who received intravenous (IV) therapy had a significantly shorter LOS (4.9 ± 2.5 IV vs. 8.0 ± 5.3 oral; p = 0.01). Conclusions: Treatment of gastroparesis patients with prokinetic agents did not shorten the LOS nor decrease 30-day readmission rates. In those receiving prokinetics, the IV route was associated with reduced LOS. Taylor & Francis 2017-01-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5327917/ /pubmed/28265483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21556660.2016.1278546 Text en © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Roe, Neil A
Sakaan, Sami
Swanson, Heather
Twilla, Jennifer D
Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis
title Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis
title_full Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis
title_fullStr Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis
title_short Evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis
title_sort evaluation of prokinetic agents used in the treatment of gastroparesis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5327917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28265483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21556660.2016.1278546
work_keys_str_mv AT roeneila evaluationofprokineticagentsusedinthetreatmentofgastroparesis
AT sakaansami evaluationofprokineticagentsusedinthetreatmentofgastroparesis
AT swansonheather evaluationofprokineticagentsusedinthetreatmentofgastroparesis
AT twillajenniferd evaluationofprokineticagentsusedinthetreatmentofgastroparesis