Evaluation of proximal gastric function in functional dyspepsia and its subtypes
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-1432.2014.06.003
- VernacularTitle:功能性消化不良及其不同亚型的近端胃功能评估
- Author:
Li DENG
;
Meiyun KE
;
Shukun YAO
;
Zhifeng WANG
;
Xiaohong SUN
;
Xiucai FANG
;
Liming ZHU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Functional dyspepsia;
Visceral hypersensitivity;
Gastric accommodation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestion
2014;34(6):374-378
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate proximal gastric function in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD) met Rome Ⅲ criteria and its subtypes.Methods Thirty FD patients were enrolled,including 15 patients with postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and 15 patients with epigastric pain syndrome (EPS).A total of 30 healthy volunteers were recruited as control.All the subjects received barostat examination.Minimal distending pressure (MDP),pressure and volume of thresholds for first sensation and maximal tolerance for gastric sensitivity were recorded.When the pressure level was MDP+2 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa),average volume at 30 minutes before meal,averaged volume at 60 minutes after meal and maximum accommodation volume after meal were recorded,and receptive diastolic volume was calculated.The gastric hypersensitivity and impaired accommodation were observed.Student's t test or x2 test was performed for statistical analysis.Results MDP,pressure of first-sensation,maximum sensation pressure,volume of first sensation and maximal sensation volume of FD group were (6.17 ±1.95) mmHg,(8.44±2.01) mmHg,(14.62±3.72) mmHg,(123.59±53.26) mL and (451.26±140.44) mL,respectively; which were lower than those of healthy control group ((9.27±1.99) mmHg,(12.04±2.66) mmHg,(19.74±4.18) mmHg,(168.41±73.06) mL and (556.89±124.07) mL),and the differences were statistically significant (t=-6.080,-5.900,-5.011,-2.723 and-2.995,all P＜0.01).The averaged volume at 30 minutes before meal and 60 minutes after meal was (212.19±120.82) mL and (333.97±121.86) mL while those of healthy control group was (191.69±66.19) mL and (385.58±83.05) mL,and there were no significant differences between the two groups (both P＞0.05).The maximum postprandial accommodation volume and receptive diastolic volume of FD group were (405.10±111.29) mL and (190.16±97.22) mL,which were lower than those of healthy control group ((461.10±87.60) mL and (262.83±78.39) mL),and the differences were statistically significant (t=-2.599 and-3.187,both P＜0.05).The maximum postprandial accommodation volume of FD patients was at 15 to 20 minutes after meal and in healthy control it was at five to ten minutes after meal.Among the 30 FD patients,12 patients (40 ％) had gastric hypersensitivity,including eight PDS patients and four EPS patients,and there was no significant difference in the ratio between two groups (P＞0.05) ;nine patients (30 ％) had impaired accommodation,including five PDS patients and four EPS patients,and there was no significant difference in the ratio between two groups (P＞ 0.05).Conclusions Gastric hypersensitivity and impaired accommodation often appear in FD patients,and there is no significant difference between PDS and EPS subtypes.FD patients with different pathophysiologic mechanisms cannot be efficiently distinguished according to Rome Ⅲ criteria.
