4.8 Article

Delayed Radionucleotide Gastric Emptying Studies Predict Morbidity in Diabetics With Symptoms of Gastroparesis

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 137, 期 2, 页码 445-452

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.04.055

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of gastric emptying studies on the morbidity associated with diabetic gastroparesis. METHODS: This was a parallel cohort study of 3 groups. Group A (n = 94) contained diabetic patients (type 1 and type 2) with classic symptoms of gastroparesis (including early satiety, postprandial fullness, bloating, abdominal swelling, nausea, vomiting, and retching) and delay in radio-nucleotide gastric emptying study. Group B (n = 94) contained diabetic Subjects with classic symptoms of gastroparesis but negative scintigraphy. Group C (n = 94) contained diabetic subjects without symptoms of gastroparesis. Data were gathered on the number of days hospitalized and hospitalizations, office visits, emergency department visits, death rate) glycosylated hemoglobin levels, medications, and past medical history. RESULTS: Group A had significantly more hospital days per 1000 patient days (25.5) than both group B (5.1; P < .01) and group C (2.3; P < .01). Group A also had significantly more hospitalizations, office visits, and emergency department visits than both group B and group C. Deaths and mean glycosylated hemoglobin levels did not differ between the groups. Patients in group A were more likely to have cardiovascular disease (19.2% vs 6.4%, A vs C; P < .05), hypertension (63% vs 43%, A vs C; P = .005), and retinopathy (33% vs 11.7%, A vs Q P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A delayed radio-nucleotide gastric emptying study predicts negative health outcomes in diabetic patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. We identified a correlation between diabetic gastroparesis and cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and retinopathy that may indicate an underlying vascular etiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据