Characterization of gastric volume responses and liquid emptying in functional dyspepsia and health by MRI or barostat and simultaneous 13C-acetate breath test
Characterization of gastric volume responses and liquid emptying in functional dyspepsia and health by MRI or barostat and simultaneous 13C-acetate breath test
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01267.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-07-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Goetze, O.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fruehauf, H.;Steingoetter, A.;Goetze, O.
通过不同方法评估胃调节和排空提供不一致的结果。我们的目的是比较磁共振成像（MRI），恒压器和C-13-醋酸呼气试验（BT）的胃容量反应和排空的健康对照（HC）和功能性消化不良（FD）患者的评估。8例HC和8例FD患者接受：（i）在摄入等热量、300 kcal、200和800 mL膳食（均标记有100 mg C-13-乙酸酯）后，在直立位置进行连续BT和同步MRI;（ii）在摄入200 mL膳食后，使用胃恒压器进行BT。MRI测量基线、充盈后和排空期间的胃总体积和胃内容物体积（GCV）。计算MRI和BT的进餐排空半衰期（T1/2）（平均值± SD）。我们发现：（i）FD患者在800 mL餐后的初始GCV低于HC患者（762 +/- 22 vs 810 +/- 52 mL，P < 0.04），但在200 mL餐后则无此差异。800 mL的T1/2（MRI）短于200 mL膳食（P < 0.001），但HC和FD相似（200 mL：HC 117 +/- 30 min vs FD 138 +/- 42 min，ns; 800 mL：HC 71 +/- 16 min vs FD 78 +/- 27 min，ns）。相比之下，两餐和两组之间的T1/2（BT）相似（200 mL：HC 111 +/- 11 min vs FD 116 +/- 19 min; 800 mL：HC 114 +/- 14 min vs FD：113 +/- 17 min）。(ii)恒压仪测量显示两组之间餐后容量增加相似。我们的结论是，通过MRI直接测量提供了一个敏感的，非侵入性的评估餐后胃的适应性和排空。与MRI相反，BT未检测到HC或FD中高容量液体营养餐的排空速度快于低容量液体营养餐。
The assessment of gastric accommodation and emptying by different methodologies provides inconsistent results. We aimed to compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), barostat and C-13-acetate breath test (BT) for the assessment of gastric volume responses and emptying in healthy controls (HC) and patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). Eight HC and eight FD patients underwent: (i) continuous BT with simultaneous MRI in the upright position after ingestion of isocaloric, 300 kcal, 200 and 800 mL meals, both labelled with 100 mg of C-13-acetate; and (ii) BT with gastric barostat after ingestion of the 200 mL meal. MRI measured total gastric volume and gastric content volume (GCV) at baseline, after filling and during emptying. Meal emptying half-times (T1/2) for MRI and BT were calculated (mean +/- SD). We found: (i) Initial GCV was lower in FD than in HC (762 +/- 22 vs 810 +/- 52 mL, P < 0.04) after the 800 mL meal but not the 200 mL meal. T1/2(MRI) was shorter for the 800 mL than the 200 mL meal (P < 0.001), but similar in HC and FD (200 mL: HC 117 +/- 30 min vs FD 138 +/- 42 min, ns; 800 mL: HC 71 +/- 16 min vs FD 78 +/- 27 min, ns). In contrast, T1/2(BT) was similar between meals and groups (200 mL: HC 111 +/- 11 min vs FD 116 +/- 19 min; 800 mL: HC 114 +/- 14 min vs FD: 113 +/- 17 min). (ii) Barostat measurements showed similar postprandial volume increases between groups. We conclude that direct measurements by MRI provide a sensitive, non-invasive assessment of gastric accommodation and emptying after a meal. In contrast to MRI, BT did not detect faster emptying of high-volume compared to low-volume liquid nutrient meals in HC or FD.