S3147 Frailty Scoring in Diabetic vs Non-Diabetic Gastroparesis Patients

Introduction: Gastroparesis (GP) is commonly categorized into idiopathic, diabetic, and postsurgical subtypes. Idiopathic cases account for up to two-thirds of presentations. Other causes include diabetic neuropathy, post-vagotomy, and Parkinson’s disease. Regardless of cause, symptoms tend to be similar and negatively impact quality of life. In a prior study that was completed, gastroparesis patients were found to have increased frailty across various clinical frailty scales. This study is a subgroup analysis comparing frailty and symptom burden between patients with diabetic and non-diabetic gastroparesis. Methods: Patients with gastroparesis completed several assessments: Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptom Severity Index (PAG-SYMI), SF-8 quality of life scale, FRAIL score, Clinical Frailty Scale-8 (CFS-8), Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) frailty scale, and Edmonton Frailty Scale. The PAG-SYMI (0-5) evaluates GI symptom severity, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. CFS-8 and FRAIL assess emotional and physical frailty, respectively. The CSHA (1-6) and Edmonton (0-10+) scores measure functional fitness and multidimensional frailty. Handgrip strength was measured using a Jamar dynamometer. Results: A total of 73 gastroparesis patients were included: 14 with diabetes and 59 without. No statistically significant differences were found between groups across clinical and functional measures. PAG-SYMI scores were similar (diabetic: 2.61 ± 1.04; non-diabetic: 2.55 ± 1.13; P = 0.42), as were SF-8 scores (2.06 ± 0.87 vs 2.03 ± 0.88; P = 0.46). Frailty assessments showed no significant differences: FRAIL (1.79 ± 0.97 vs 1.55 ± 1.14; P = 0.34), CSHA (3.21 ± 1.42 vs 3.16 ± 1.33; P = 0.42), and Edmonton (5.00 ± 3.28 vs 4.15 ± 2.79; P = 0.20). Diabetic patients had slightly lower handgrip strength (23.50 ± 8.93 kg vs 26.73 ± 8.12 kg; P = 0.14), though this difference was not significant. Conclusion: Patients with diabetic and non-diabetic gastroparesis demonstrated similar levels of symptom severity, quality of life impairment, and frailty. Although diabetic patients had marginally lower physical strength and higher frailty scores, these differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that gastroparesis imposes a comparable clinical burden regardless of underlying etiology. Larger studies are needed to determine whether specific subgroups may benefit from tailored interventions.

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001140048.00605.5a
Primary Topic
Frailty in Older Adults
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S3147 Frailty Scoring in Diabetic vs Non-Diabetic Gastroparesis Patients

The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Frailty in Older Adults
article

S3147 Frailty Scoring in Diabetic vs Non-Diabetic Gastroparesis Patients

article en

Abstract

Introduction: Gastroparesis (GP) is commonly categorized into idiopathic, diabetic, and postsurgical subtypes. Idiopathic cases account for up to two-thirds of presentations. Other causes include diabetic neuropathy, post-vagotomy, and Parkinson’s disease. Regardless of cause, symptoms tend to be similar and negatively impact quality of life. In a prior study that was completed, gastroparesis patients were found to have increased frailty across various clinical frailty scales. This study is a subgroup analysis comparing frailty and symptom burden between patients with diabetic and non-diabetic gastroparesis. Methods: Patients with gastroparesis completed several assessments: Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptom Severity Index (PAG-SYMI), SF-8 quality of life scale, FRAIL score, Clinical Frailty Scale-8 (CFS-8), Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) frailty scale, and Edmonton Frailty Scale. The PAG-SYMI (0-5) evaluates GI symptom severity, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. CFS-8 and FRAIL assess emotional and physical frailty, respectively. The CSHA (1-6) and Edmonton (0-10+) scores measure functional fitness and multidimensional frailty. Handgrip strength was measured using a Jamar dynamometer. Results: A total of 73 gastroparesis patients were included: 14 with diabetes and 59 without. No statistically significant differences were found between groups across clinical and functional measures. PAG-SYMI scores were similar (diabetic: 2.61 ± 1.04; non-diabetic: 2.55 ± 1.13; P = 0.42), as were SF-8 scores (2.06 ± 0.87 vs 2.03 ± 0.88; P = 0.46). Frailty assessments showed no significant differences: FRAIL (1.79 ± 0.97 vs 1.55 ± 1.14; P = 0.34), CSHA (3.21 ± 1.42 vs 3.16 ± 1.33; P = 0.42), and Edmonton (5.00 ± 3.28 vs 4.15 ± 2.79; P = 0.20). Diabetic patients had slightly lower handgrip strength (23.50 ± 8.93 kg vs 26.73 ± 8.12 kg; P = 0.14), though this difference was not significant. Conclusion: Patients with diabetic and non-diabetic gastroparesis demonstrated similar levels of symptom severity, quality of life impairment, and frailty. Although diabetic patients had marginally lower physical strength and higher frailty scores, these differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that gastroparesis imposes a comparable clinical burden regardless of underlying etiology. Larger studies are needed to determine whether specific subgroups may benefit from tailored interventions.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 37%
Frailty in Older Adults
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.